Processo de design para a geração de cenários futuros de educação

 Alessandro Manetti, European Design Institute (Espanha)

 Pablo Lara-Navarra, Open University of Catalonia (Espanha)

 Jordi Sánchez-Navarro, Open University of Catalonia (Espanha)

https://doi.org/10.3916/C73-2022-03

Palavras chave

Educação, estudos sobre o futuro, design, métodos mistos, mineração de dados, tendências

Resumo

Este artigo reúne estudos sobre o futuro e metodologias de design para desenvolver uma nova proposta de análise prospectiva no campo da educação. Aplicamos métodos de pesquisa mistos em combinação com metodologias de design para abrir novos caminhos para estudar a evolução, impacto e comportamento das tendências em cenários futuros. Nossa pesquisa é baseada em uma análise de dados qualitativos de fontes secundárias e entrevistas com especialistas que foram transformadas em dados quantitativos usando modelos de lógica fuzzy aplicados aos ambientes de dados não controlados da Internet. Nosso objetivo é verificar a validade do método DEFLEXOR, que aborda a necessidade de identificar oportunidades educacionais com base em cenários futuros definidos por meio de megatendências detectadas em diversos campos. Nossas conclusões destacam que a combinação de abordagens qualitativas e quantitativas com os princípios metodológicos do design thinking, juntamente com cálculos automatizados decorrentes da reflexão criativa de especialistas, constitui uma metodologia poderosa para o desenvolvimento de estudos prospectivos específicos.

Referências

Berenskoetter, F. (2011). Reclaiming the vision thing: Constructivists as students of the future. International Studies Quarterly, 55(3), 647-668. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00669.x

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Bonami, B., Piazentini, L., & Dala-Possa, A. (2020). Education, Big data and artificial intelligence: Mixed methods in digital platforms. [Educación, big data e inteligencia artificial: Metodologías mixtas en plataformas digitales]. Comunicar, 65, 43-52. https://doi.org/10.3916/C65-2020-04

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Brown, T.J., & Kuratko, D.F. (2015). The impact of design and innovation on the future of education. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(2), 147-151. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000010

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Campbell, D.T., & Fiske, D.W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81-105. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046016

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Sage. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n5p40

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Creswell, J.W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Sage. https://bit.ly/3hp6dDT

Link Google Scholar

Creswell, J.W., & Plano-Clark, V.L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage. https://bit.ly/3spnC5D

Link Google Scholar

Curry, L., & Nunez-Smith, M. (2015). Mixed methods in health sciences research. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483390659

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Dagnino, F.M, Dimitriadis, Y., Pozzi, F., Rubia-Avi, B., & Asensio-Pérez, J. (2020). The role of supporting technologies in a mixed methods research design. [El rol de las tecnologías de apoyo en un diseño de investigación de métodos mixtos]. Comunicar, 65, 53-63. https://doi.org/10.3916/C65-2020-05

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

De-Bono, E. (2000). Six thinking hats. Penguin Books. https://bit.ly/3hiWuPm

Link Google Scholar

Decoufle, A.C. (1974). La prospectiva. Oikos-tau. https://bit.ly/3wFADZM

Link Google Scholar

Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521-532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Frisendal, T. (2012). Opportunity: Open information sharing. In Design thinking business analysis. Management for professionals. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32844-2_13

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Godet, M. (2001). Creating futures. Economica. https://bit.ly/3wBsiHP

Link Google Scholar

Guetterman, T.C., Fetters, M.D., & Creswell, J.W. (2015). Integrating quantitative and qualitative results in health science mixed methods research through joint displays. Annals of Family Medicine, 13(6), 554-561. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1865

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Huber, L., & Veldman, G.J. (2015). Manual thinking. Empresa Activa. https://bit.ly/33U7csr

Link Google Scholar

Ito, J., & Howe, J. (2016). Whiplash: How to survive our faster future. Grand Central Publishing. https://bit.ly/3BTnX3A

Link Google Scholar

Jick, T.D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602-611. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392366

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Kuosa, T. (2010). Futures signals sense-making framework (FSSF): A start-up tool to analyse and categorise weak signals, wild cards, drivers, trends and other types of information. Futures, 42(1), 42-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2009.08.003

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Kuosa, T. (2016). The evolution of strategic foresight: Navigating public policy making. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315558394

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Lara-Navarra, P., Lopez-Borrull, A., Sánchez-Navarro, J., & Yànez, P. (2018). Medición de la influencia de usuarios en redes sociales: Propuesta SocialEngagement. Profesional de la Información, 27(4), 899-908. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2018.jul.18

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Lawson, B. (1980). How designers think. Architectural Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780080454979

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Manetti, A., Ferrer-Sapena, A., Sánchez-Pérez, E.A., & Lara-Navarra, P. (2021). Design trend forecasting by combining conceptual analysis and semantic projections: New tools for open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7010092

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Manzini, E., & Coad, R. (2015). Design, when everybody designs: An introduction to design for social innovation. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9873.001.0001

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Martínez-Martínez, S., & Lara-Navarra, P. (2014). El big data transforma la interpretación de los medios sociales. Profesional de la Información, 23(6), 575-581. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2014.nov.03

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Meyer, I., & Mackintosh, K. (1994). Phraseme analysis and concept analysis: Exploring a symbiotic relationship in the specialized lexicon. In W. Martin, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th EURALEX International Congress (pp. 339-348). Euralex. https://bit.ly/3M68u4N

Link Google Scholar

Mohri, M., Rostamizadeh, A., & Talwalkar, A. (2018). Foundations of machine learning. MIT Press. https://bit.ly/3K3v7VX

Link Google Scholar

Mojica, F. J. (2005). La construcción del futuro. Concepto y modelo de prospectiva estratégica, territorial y tecnológica, Books, 1(26). https://bit.ly/3G4lRA6

Link Google Scholar

Morse, J.M., & Niehaus, L. (2009). Mixed method design. Principles and procedures. Routledge. https://bit.ly/3tfUJYI

Link Google Scholar

Oxman, R. (2017). Thinking difference: Theories and models of parametric design thinking. Design Studies, 52, 4-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2017.06.001

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

O’Halloran, K.L., Tan, S., Pham, D.S., Bateman, J., & Vande-Moere, A. (2018). A digital mixed methods research design: Integrating multimodal analysis with data mining and information visualization for big data analytics. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(1), 11-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816651015

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Pereira-Pérez, Z. (2011). Los diseños de método mixto en la investigación en educación: Una experiencia concreta. Revista Electrónica Educare, 25(1), 15-29. https://doi.org/10.15359/ree.15-1.2

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Ramírez-Montoya, M.S., & Lugo-Ocando, J. (2020). Systematic review of mixed methods in the framework of educational innovation. [Revisión sistemática de métodos mixtos en el marco de la innovación educativa]. Comunicar, 65, 9-20. https://doi.org/10.3916/C65-2020-01

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Rowe, P.G. (1987). Design thinking. MIT Press. https://bit.ly/3HjpL7f

Link Google Scholar

Saorín, T., & Pastor-Sánchez, J.A. (2018). Wikidata y DBpedia: Viaje al centro de la web de datos. Anuario ThinkEPI, 12, 207-214. https://doi.org/10.3145/thinkepi.2018.31

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Schwartz, P. (1991). The art of long view. Crown Business. https://bit.ly/3lskZMaShavlik, J.W., Dietterich, T., & Dietterich, T.G. (1990). Readings in machine learning. Morgan Kaufmann. https://bit.ly/36Mq0uT

Link Google Scholar

Suchanek, F.M., Kasneci, G., & Weikum, G. (2007). Yago: A core of semantic knowledge. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web (pp. 697-706). https://doi.org/10.1145/1242572.1242667

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Vejlgaard, H. (2007). Anatomy of a trend. Confetti Publishing. https://bit.ly/3so6wF4

Link Google Scholar

Visser, W. (2006). The cognitive artifacts of designing. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781482269529

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Fundref

Crossmark

Technical information

Recebido: 27-02-2022

Revisado: 05-04-2022

Aceite: 12-05-2022

OnlineFirst: 30-06-2022

Data de publicação: 01-10-2022

Tempo de revisão do artigo: 37 dias | Tempo médio de revisão do número 73: 44 dias

Tempo de aceitação do artigo: 74 dias | Tempo médio de aceitação do número 73: 89 dias

Tempo de edição da pré-impressão: 171 dias | Tempo médio de edição pré-impressão do número 73: 186 dias

Tempo de processamento do artigo: 216 dias | Tempo médio de processamento do número 73: 231 dias

Métricas

Métricas deste artigo

Vistas: 37284

Leituras dos resumos: 34783

Descargas em PDF: 2501

Métricas completas do Comunicar 73

Vistas: 372489

Leituras dos resumos: 344209

Descargas em PDF: 28280

Citado por