=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2555/paper23
|storemode=property
|title=Mobile application based on Design Thinking for teaching kinematics
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2555/paper23.pdf
|volume=Vol-2555
|authors=Carlos Eduardo Arbieto-Batallanos,Luis Daniel Villanueva-Montoya,Dewitt Scott Chavez-Ponce,Reynaldo Alfonte-Zapana,María del Carmen Córdova-Martínez
}}
==Mobile application based on Design Thinking for teaching kinematics==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2555/paper23.pdf
Mobile Application based on Design Thinking
for Teaching Kinematics
Carlos Eduardo Arbieto-Batallanos1[0000−0002−7094−4272] , Luis Daniel
Villanueva-Montoya2[0000−0001−5361−6456] , Dewitt Scott
Chavez-Ponce3[0000−0002−2829−9986] , Reynaldo
Alfonte-Zapana4[0000−0002−5602−201X] , and Marı́a del Carmen
Córdova-Martı́nez5[0000−0002−5186−6598]
Universidad Nacional de San Agustı́n de Arequipa
{carbieto,lvillanuevamo,dchavezp,ralfonte,mcordovam}@unsa.edu.pe
Abstract. Ignorance of the usefulness of technology makes it challeng-
ing to apply innovative strategies in the classroom, accompanied by a
thought that educational technology is about introducing more techno-
logical devices to the school, and not how to use technological tools for
the scope of the teaching/learning process. To these problems, a time
circumstance is added since teachers need enough time to update them-
selves. In recent years some new trends have been emerging and have
taken more strength in innovation, fostering new forms of teaching. Their
intention in educational centers is to prepare students for a new type of
society, which is the information society. For this reason, this work pro-
poses the use of the design thinking methodology for the development of
a mobile application, efficient and usable for teaching kinematics, obtain-
ing a favorable result given to the acceptance of a sample of fifth-year
students from a high school.
Keywords: Design Thinking · Education tecnology · Mobile Aplication
· kinematics · innovation
1 Introduction
Today, the work of innovation and digital change is not a simple task for the
teaching staff of schools. The misuse of technology makes it difficult to im-
plement innovative strategies in the classroom. There is a misconception that
educational technology is just introducing many technological devices to school,
not on how to use technological tools adequately in the field of teaching and
learning. Added to this problem is time, given that teachers need time to learn,
explore, dominate, and put it into practice. Innovation in educational technol-
ogy (EdTech) not only refers to the use of tools but also to pedagogy, teaching,
strategies, processes, resources, and talent development [5]. Educational innova-
tion is a compilation of ideas, methods, and procedures, which promote changes
in instructional practices and taking advantage of technologies. The processes
are more efficient, academic, challenging, and motivating, intending to become
a disruptive education since they impact the entire educational context[3].
Copyright c 2019 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons
License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
2 C. Arbieto, L. Villanueva, D. Chavez, R. Alfonte ,M. Córdova
In recent years, new trends have gained more strength in innovation and
promoting new ways of teaching. The intention is to apply them in schools and
to prepare students for a new kind of society, the society information, not only
seeking to teach the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT)
but looking for new learning tools to meet the unique educational challenges.
Design Thinking is an analytical and creative process that involves a group of
people from different fields to generate innovative ideas. The focus is mainly
on the user experience, modeling, and construction, with emphasis on the most
critical part of the implementation of the model. We refer to the redesign,
to detect problems and needs, and to find a quick and useful solution[9]. This
article proposes the use of Design Thinking methodology for the development
of a mobile application for teaching the course of the kinematics. To meet the
objective of the proposal, we formed a group of experts in the field of software
engineering and education, allowing the diversity of knowledge and empathizing
with a more in-depth human approach to learn more about the needs of students.
2 Theoretical framework
2.1 Research Problem
The complexity is identified as a problem in the stage of digital transformation
in regular primary education, which presents various challenges as a time cir-
cumstance, so that a teacher can adapt, and a slow process of adaptability to
generate innovative ideas quickly and efficiently, in this case, in the process of
ideation and development of the interfaces of the mobile application for teaching
kinematics.
2.2 Hypothesis
The objective of this research is to propose a viable and efficient interface for
the student to support the teaching-learning process of the kinematic course and
redesign fast and efficient using design thinking, which is expected to achieve that
through the use Design Thinking to able to respond quickly to the needs of users
with a usable interface, friendly and efficient for students.
2.3 Design thinking
Design is a process that converts a requirement into a finished product or a
design solution, this process mostly includes creativity, but is controlled and
marked by the process so that a simple solution to the problem that meets the
established considerations is achieved. The design process is essential to produce
several possible solutions and uses several techniques that encourage designers
to generate creative and innovative solutions [18].
In recent years, several organizations and individuals have discovered the
power of design thinking by creating products with innovation. Design thinking
Mobile Application based on Design Thinking for Teaching Kinematics 3
is an implicit activity in the design process and can change the way we work,
changing the way we think, solve problems and develop products and services
[18]. The design concept of the thought came to lift the state of design, discussed
and documented in the latter part of the twentieth century, and is one described
as a way of thinking or studying cognitive processes which later become the
generation of design [19].
Design Thinking mainly focuses on the needs of the people who will consume
the product and takes into account the perspective of various stakeholders [11].
These are mostly made up of end users and key actors in the service value chain,
this is the reason for the multidisciplinary nature of the Design Thinking concept
[18, 8]. An essential feature in the problem-solving process in Design Thinking
involves the ability to simplify knowledge from a variety of sources [18],[17].
Design Thinking has been used widely and effectively in different disciplines,
design, education, engineering, business, information technology for many years
[8, 17].
The Stanford model is composed of five phases or stages of Design Thinking;
all stages are indispensable, and these are, empathize, define, devise, create pro-
totyping, and testing. These phases are not linear and will iterate in the process
[18, 11, 6].
2.4 Mobile applications based on design thinking
Design Thinking, according to Brown [2], uses the sensitivity and techniques of
the designer to meet the needs of users, this being technologically feasible, is an
effective way to involve different stakeholders as software engineers.
Due to the fast and competitive market of mobile applications, it is necessary
to have new skills to be able to design effective solutions; Design Thinking can
supplement these skills that are necessary in the process of design and devel-
opment of mobile applications [16]. According to Hiremath and Sathiyam [7],
Design Thinking is increasingly used by software developers as an innovation
tool.
In Valentim’s work [16] an empirical study was conducted with the participa-
tion of 17 graduate students to identify their views on the use of Design Thinking
in mobile application design. The first two phases of the Design Thinking process
proposed by Brown were taken as a reference and during these different tech-
niques were used, which are: person, which describes the objectives, interests,
and abilities of the users; empathy map, to understand the environment, aspira-
tions, concerns and user behavior; brainstorm, generate questions and that the
team can generate ideas; Co-creation workshop, to bring together end-users and
carry out a design process together with them. The results obtained through
the students’ perceptions were that they considered valuable the use of Design
Thinking and the techniques in the design of a mobile application since it allowed
them to understand the needs of the end-users better.
4 C. Arbieto, L. Villanueva, D. Chavez, R. Alfonte ,M. Córdova
2.5 Case Study
The case study in the subject of Kinematics is a branch of physics that studies
the movement of solid objects and their trajectory as a function of time, without
taking into account the origin of the forces that motivate [12]. Therefore, the
Design Thinking methodology is focused on developing a prototype of a mobile
application that proposes experiments in virtual environments that students can
develop and interact with their peers.
2.6 Population and sample
The proposal will be developed at the Antonio José de Sucre Educational Insti-
tution by agreement with the National University of San Agustı́n. The working
group will be a subset of 24 students between 15 and 18 years of the 5th year of
secondary level studies.
Design thinking process Design Thinking methodology focuses on the rapid
creation of a prototype, which is to generate ideas and turn them into real prod-
ucts that will then be tested, iterated and refined with the comments provided
by interested parties [11]. In this context, the interested parties are the students
of the educational institution that take the role of end users, physics professors
and other areas of science of the educational institution, and the interdisciplinary
group that makes up the research project divided into 2 teams, team of develop-
ment which is made up of developers, systems specialists, the mobile application
designer and the pedagogical team made up of an education specialist, a teacher
and the mentor of the research project, this can be seen in detail in Table 1.
Table 1: Participants in the process.
Pedagogical Team
PT1 Marı́a del Carmen Córdova Martinez
PT2 Sarita Lima Llanllaya
PT3 Jorge Joo Nagata
Development Team
DP1 Carlos Arbieto Batallanos
DP2 Reynaldo Alfonte Zapana
DP3 Luis Villanueva Montoya
DP4 Dewitt Chavez Ponce
Final Users
FU1 Students of the educational institution
FU2 Physics teacher of the educational institution
FU3 Laboratory teacher of the educational institution
FU4 Other science teachers of the educational institution
The design process of the mobile application was carried out following the
non-linear stages or phases of Design Thinking proposed by Brown and Wy-
Mobile Application based on Design Thinking for Teaching Kinematics 5
att [2], which consists of 3 stages or iterative phases: inspiration, ideation and
implementation, as shown in the Table 2.
Table 2: Design Thinking phases for the mobile application design process.
DT Phases Activities Objective Participants
Identify the current situation, needs
DP3 DP4 PT1
Workshop 1 and challenges of final users.
Phase 1: PT2 FU3
Understand the context of the problem.
Inspiration
Know the specific content that is dictated in
Personal DP3 DP4 PT1
the subject and how it is currently dictated.
interview PT2 FU2
Validate workshop 1 results.
Obtain details of final users, demographics,
knowledge of mobile applications and
interest in learning with them. DP2 DP3 DP4
Survey
Know the attitude towards the technology FU1
of the final users.
Understand user point of view.
Brainstorming.
Propose creative solutions for the mobile
PT1 PT2 DP1
Workshop 2 application.
DP3 DP4
Establish the requirements of the mobile
Phase 2:
application.
Ideation
PT1 PT2 DP1
Workshop 3 Sketch the main screens of the application.
DP3 DP4
Discuss the needs of the educational
PT1 PT2 PT3
Workshop 4 content of the mobile application.
DP1 DP3 DP4
Define the main functionalities.
Co-Creation Discuss and generate innovative ideas PT1 PT2 PT3
Workshop in the mobile application interfaces. DP1 DP3 DP4
Discuss, refine and adjust ideas. PT1 PT2 PT3
Workshop 5 Receive comments on thecontent and DP1 DP2 DP3
preliminary design of the mobile application DP4 FU2 FU4
Test the prototype of the mobile application.
PT2 DP1 DP3
Phase 3: Workshop 6 Explore user experiences with the
DP4 FU1 FU2
Implemen- prototype in practice.
tation Collect information on the point of view of PT1 PT2 DP1
Survey final users regarding the mobile application. DP2 DP3 DP4
Analyze information. FU1 FU2
Phase 1 Inspiration: This phase focused on understanding the current sit-
uation the needs and challenges of end users in a normal physics lab session.
Together with the physics laboratory teacher of the educational institution and
the observation, the aim was to understand the problems encountered when
dictating a laboratory session. A personal interview was conducted with the
theoretical physics professor in order to know the specific content that dictates
in his course and perform the validation of the data collected in workshop 1.
6 C. Arbieto, L. Villanueva, D. Chavez, R. Alfonte ,M. Córdova
The pedagogical team together with the development team elaborated a survey
that we carried out to 70 final students with the objective to gather information
of their knowledge of mobile applications and interest to learn with them and
to know their attitude towards the technology, the survey also included ques-
tions related to the demography and had an approximate duration of 2 hours
distributed in 3 groups. The data collection focused on three themes: the current
situation in which the physics course is being conducted, the students’ interest
in learning with technology, and technological knowledge and preparation.
Phase 2 Ideation: In this phase the collected data will be analysed and trans-
formed into innovative ideas for change [11]. After a clearer understanding of the
problem, a workshop was held with the pedagogical team and the development
team, first a brainstorming session was held in order to propose creative solu-
tions for the mobile application, after an extensive discussion the requirements
for the mobile application were defined. A second workshop was held to sketch
the main screens of the application. In a third workshop was discussed about
the needs of educational content and the main functionalities that should have
the mobile application, the relevant content of the application was validated by
the connoisseurs of the pedagogical team. The co-creation workshop was carried
out with the pedagogical team and the development team, seeking to generate
innovative ideas by brainstorming the preliminary interfaces that had been de-
veloped by the designer. In the final part of this phase, a workshop was held at
the educational institution where the pedagogical team, the development team
and the final users were joined. In this workshop, the preliminary interfaces
were presented in order to discuss and receive comments on the content and
preliminary design of the mobile application. With all the feedback, the ideas,
application content and design were adjusted and refined during this phase.
Phase 3 Implementation: In this phase the prototype of the mobile applica-
tion was tested on intelligent cell phones, a workshop was held at the educational
institution together with part of the pedagogical team, the development team
and students of the educational institution, the prototypes were tested on a total
of twenty-four students in a period of twenty-five minutes, this test was intended
to explore the experiences of users with the prototype in practice, information
was collected from this test through observation. After testing the prototypes on
smart phones, a survey was taken that focused on the student’s experience with
the prototype using usability questions of these, in order to collect information
from the point of view of end users. The results of the practical test and the
survey were used to create a list of recommended settings for the application
prototypes. In Fig.1, it is possible to observe evidence in the ideation process of
the mobile application, captured in low fidelity prototypes(wireframes).
Application prototype After the previous processes, the experience gathered,
a first interface was proposed, based on the expert judgment by the research team
and a series of interviews that were conducted with the teachers of the school,
this first interface proposal was developed, from a own interface perspective, and
without design trend, proposing a playful and educational environment, based
Mobile Application based on Design Thinking for Teaching Kinematics 7
Fig. 1: Low-Fi interface design - wireframes, own elaboration.
on the comments, advice and experiences of the team and teachers, as seen in
the following Fig. 2, these were presented to the teachers of the school, where
their functionality and usability were evaluated, obtaining a negative response,
collecting comments that observed a slow learning, a graphic distraction due to
the use of colors and images, which made it difficult for students to have They
give a correct understanding of what happened, so they requested a redesign, as
well as the flow of the interfaces, if they were accepted so the following redesign
should propose a better interface but with the same flow.
Fig. 2: Hi-Fi interface design - First implementation and redesign, own elaboration
8 C. Arbieto, L. Villanueva, D. Chavez, R. Alfonte ,M. Córdova
Redesign After the first implementation, and due to the need for a redesign,
and as indicated by the Design thinking methodology, a quick response was
given, looking for an efficient solution, for which an investigation was determined
that determined, that the design trends, they presented better signifiers in the
interaction and acceptance of the users, within these, Google Material Design
showed a preference on the part of the majority of users [14], and that is why,
it was decided to make use of this trend, to redesign the application, seeking to
reduce the use of many colors, and use design patterns for the different sections
of the application, as seen in the right side Fig. 2.
Development The tools that were used are:
– Adobe XD as a tool for creating and designing prototypes in addition to
offering a collaborative environment. [13].
– Google Material Design tool that helps design interfaces following good de-
sign principles [15].
– Interviews for the collection of information for restrictions and key features
of the application [10].
– Likert surveys where the student must answer yes strongly agree, agree,
undecided, disagree, or strongly disagree according to questions that focus
on a usability attribute. [4].
– Brainstorm in a group made up of the developer team, the pedagogical team
and the mentor. [1]
The questions of the surveys are made up of sections in which usability
attributes are detailed, such as: Understandability, learning, operability, attrac-
tiveness and compliance, the questions are detailed in the Table 3:
Table 3: Usability survey.
Questions Usability Attribute
1. You understood what the application is
Understandability
2. You understood how to move on the screens
3. Offers an opportunity to interact with the contents
Learning
4. Clearly define the contents of the course
5. The application is easy to use
Operatibility
6. Did you understand how each button works
7. The design (color, icons, structure) is nice
Attractiveness
8. Offers a motivating environment
9. Do you think you can learn through this application
Compliance
10. Would you recommend that you use this application to other colleagues
Application acceptance tests The application acceptance tests were made
through usability questionnaire. The questionnaire comprises 5 dimensions of
Mobile Application based on Design Thinking for Teaching Kinematics 9
usability and was applied to high school students. The number students tested
were 24, however two students did not answer all the questions, so we had two
missing values.
3 Results
In this section, we provide the results of the usability questionnaire. In Table
4, a descriptive information of usability is shown. We observe the usability has
a mean value of 4.27 and standard deviation of 0.51, which means outstanding
results.
Table 4: Statistics for different dimensions of usability
Statistics
Understandability Learning Operability Attractiveness Compliance Usability
Valid 24 24 22 22 22 22
N
Missing 0 0 2 2 2 2
Mean 4.2917 4.1875 4.2955 4.2045 4.3409 4.2727
Median 4.2500 4.0000 4.5000 4.5000 4.5000 4.2500
Mode 4.00 4.00 4,00a 5.00 4.50 4.20
Desviation 0.55003 0.68861 0.59078 0.86821 0.60526 0.51286
Variance 0.303 0.474 0.349 0.754 0.366 0.263
Minimum 3.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.20
Maximum 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
4 Conclusions
After all the processes involved in the development of this work and conducting
the necessary tests to validate our proposal, we can conclude that the use of
design thinking methodology contributes significantly to innovation because it
involves all users in the process and can quickly respond to needs through re-
designs. In the same way, we expect to see great results when testing different
aspects of teaching physics.
Acknowledgement
We appreciate deeply to the Universidad Nacional de San Agustı́n de Arequipa,
organization where we belong.
10 C. Arbieto, L. Villanueva, D. Chavez, R. Alfonte ,M. Córdova
References
1. Bouchard Jr, T.J., Hare, M.: Size, performance, and potential in brainstorming
groups. Journal of applied Psychology 54(1p1), 51 (1970)
2. Brown, T., Wyatt, J.: Design thinking for social innovation. Development Outreach
12(1), 29–43 (2010)
3. Chen, P., Huang, R.: Design thinking in app inventor game design and develop-
ment: A case study. In: 2017 IEEE 17th International Conference on Advanced
Learning Technologies (ICALT). pp. 139–141. IEEE (2017)
4. Croasmun, J.T., Ostrom, L.: Using likert-type scales in the social sciences. Journal
of Adult Education 40(1), 19–22 (2011)
5. Flores, H.A., Guerrero, J.J., Luna, L.G.: Innovación educativa en el aula mediante
design thinking y game thinking. HAMUT’AY 6(1), 82–95 (2019)
6. Henriksen, D., Richardson, C., Mehta, R.: Design thinking: A creative approach
to educational problems of practice. Thinking Skills and Creativity 26, 140–153
(2017)
7. Hiremath, M., Sathiyam, V.: Fast train to dt: a practical guide to coach design
thinking in software industry. In: IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interac-
tion. pp. 780–787. Springer (2013)
8. Huq, A., Gilbert, D.: All the world’sa stage: transforming entrepreneurship educa-
tion through design thinking. Education+ Training 59(2), 155–170 (2017)
9. Kolko, J.: Design thinking comes of age (2015)
10. Lederman, L.C.: Assessing educational effectiveness: The focus group interview as
a technique for data collection. Communication education 39(2), 117–127 (1990)
11. Petersen, M., Hempler, N.F.: Development and testing of a mobile application to
support diabetes self-management for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes:
a design thinking case study. BMC medical informatics and decision making 17(1),
91 (2017)
12. Raffino, M.E.: Concepto de cinemática. url-
https://concepto.de/cinematica/ixzz644z33YCg (2019)
13. Schwarz, D.: Jump Start Adobe XD. SitePoint (2017)
14. Shahid, S., ter Voort, J., Somers, M., Mansour, I.: Skeuomorphic, flat or material
design: requirements for designing mobile planning applications for students with
autism spectrum disorder. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference
on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct. pp.
738–745. ACM (2016)
15. da Silva, J.V., Pereira, R., Buchdid, S.B., Duarte, E.F., Baranauskas, M.C.C.:
Sawd-socially aware design: an organizational semiotics-based case tool to support
early design activities. In: International Conference on Informatics and Semiotics
in Organisations. pp. 59–69. Springer (2016)
16. Valentim, N.M.C., Silva, W., Conte, T.: The students’ perspectives on applying
design thinking for the design of mobile applications. In: Proceedings of the 39th
International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering and Ed-
ucation Track. pp. 77–86. IEEE Press (2017)
17. Whang, L., Tawatao, C., Danneker, J., Belanger, J., Edward Weber, S., Garcia, L.,
Klaus, A.: Understanding the transfer student experience using design thinking.
Reference Services Review 45(2), 298–313 (2017)
18. Wolniak, R.: The design thinking method and its stages. Systemy Wspomagania
w Inżynierii Produkcji 6 (2017)
19. Wrigley, C., Straker, K.: Design thinking pedagogy: The educational design ladder.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International 54(4), 374–385 (2017)