This design case documents the iterative redesign of a general education Digital Maker course at a Taiwanese university across three years (2020–2022), tracing how the course evolved to support students in generating and sustaining design ideas rooted in their everyday experiences. The central design challenge was translating openness, initially introduced through the concept of Useless Design, into actionable entry points that students could use to begin and sustain their own design processes. Through three iterations, the course shifted from conceptual provocation to personal grounding (Make for Yourself) and ultimately to an interest-driven model (Seed–Grow–Bloom), with design principles, Encourage–Play–Share (EPS) and Graft–Transform-Remix (GTR), emerging from observed classroom practice. Through these iterations, we came to understand everyday interests not only as entry points but as design materials that could support sustained development; structure as something we could reconfigure to enable responsiveness rather than prescribe progression; and sustained post-class dialogue between co-designers as the mechanism through which our observations became design decisions.
This design case traces the iterative development of problem scenarios to support problem-based learning (PBL) in an afterschool makerspace program for underserved middle school students. Anchored in authentic community-based challenges, the design aimed to spark engagement with STEM while gradually scaffolding complexity through Bloom’s Taxonomy and Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development. The process was far from linear. Early ideas such as neighborhood tours and a “plug-first” approach to coding proved unworkable, leading to reframing, redesign, and the adoption of an unplug–plug–integrate sequence that balanced accessibility with challenge. Stakeholder input was critical: teachers cautioned against deficit-based framings like “crime,” while expert reviewers, consulted through a Delphi process, revealed tensions between ambitious complexity and feasible accessibility. Although consensus was partial (52% strong, 48% moderate), this feedback strengthened the design by surfacing trade-offs rather than signaling failure.
This design case presents the design process to develop a Design and Possibility Spaces Framework for a lab school network. We have a two-fold purpose in authoring this article. We present the authors’ perspectives on how a collaborative design space evolved in designing the Framework. We do this by sharing the narrative of design in parallel sections in each designer’s voice. Then, in a single voice, we discuss what it meant to absorb the power of a design studio into our thinking and then begin building it into the lab school network. Embracing a design space of possibilities meant making meaning of: (a) being aware in the moment, (b) being vulnerable, (c) being empathic, (d) having a beginner’s mind, and (e) getting out of one’s head.
This design case describes our team’s development of Learning, Educating, and Developing Out-of-School Teaching (LEAD OST), an online professional development program addressing the training gap experienced by out-of-school-time (OST) educators. Drawing on sociocultural learning, informal learning, and experiential learning theories, we designed a fully asynchronous, modular program intended to provide practice-integrated professional development suited to the scheduling constraints, geographic dispersion, and resource limitations common in OST settings. In this case, we describe how we integrated these three theoretical frameworks into specific design decisions, module structures, and assessment strategies, and how the constraints we worked within- a limited-hours format, a fixed platform, and no compensation for participants- shaped those decisions in turn. Because we set out for LEAD OST to serve a research purpose alongside its educational one, we also built an evaluation architecture directly into the program, embedding assessment activities that double as data sources for future refinement. We close by describing our plans for piloting the program with OST educators and the questions we hope that pilot will help us answer. We offer this case as a documented instance of one team’s design process, for readers to draw on as they see fit for their own work.
Cycling Around Taiwan is an approximately 1,000 km challenge that requires training and preparation. However, the current instructions may not be friendly from female cyclists’ perspectives. To address this issue, we utilize a feminist methodology to empower women through a process of knowledge building, crafting new guidance from women’s perspectives: learning from women, designing for women, and created by women. We highlight women’s particular safety concerns on cycling tours, information about cycling during the menstrual period, a self-test and customized training tool, and modular cycling routes. Through user testing, we gathered constructive feedback and identified three key challenges involving the target audience, the self-assessment tool, and local connections, along with potential solutions. Our design case marks the beginning of an effort to cultivate a women-friendly cycling culture, promoting a safer, better-prepared, self-paced, and adaptable Cycling Around Taiwan experience. We believe that this guidance will eventually benefit not only women but also other groups who enjoy cycling tours.
