Building Bridges Project 1

Running Head: BUILDING BRIDGES
Andrews University
School of Education
Using an Online Innovation Process to
Build Bridges Between Adventist Education
and Adventist Homeschooling
An Innovation Project Report
Presented in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
by
Dawn Peterson
December 2018
i
BUILDING BRIDGES
APPROVAL BY THE COMMITTEE:
_________________________________ ________________________________________
Advisor: Randy Siebold, PhD Leadership Department Chair: Duane Covrig PhD
_________________________________ ________________________________________
Second Reader: Jay Brand, PhD Date approved
ii
BUILDING BRIDGES
Abstract
Within the Seventh-day Adventist church, homeschooling has become a popular
educational choice parents have made. For many years, the relationship between Adventist
homeschooling parents and Adventist education has been tenuis. Adventist education could
benefit from creative innovations that can possibly build a bridge of partnership and
collaboration that would include home educating as a part of the educational ministry of the
church to young people. The purpose of this project was to find ways of helping Adventist
education work together with homeschoolers by facilitating a panel of Adventist educators in an
online innovation experience using a design thinking process. Various stakeholders of Adventist
education and the Adventist homeschooling community were asked to participate. Due to the
geographical diversity among the stakeholders, this innovation project used online virtual
collaboration technology as a medium of communication. Two sets of data were collected
during the course of this innovation project. The first data set was to capture the outcomes from
the implementation process and the second was to determine whether design thinking and virtual
teams could be useful in building the bridges. Findings revealed design thinking and virtual
collaboration have the potential to be a useful method toward the innovation of approaches to
collaboration and divulged two key themes. Findings indicate a desire from the Adventist
homeschooling families for a better working relationship with Adventist education. This would
be enhanced with communication that is inclusive and respectful of their role as the primary
teacher.
Keywords: [homeschooling, home schooling, Adventist, Seventh-day Adventist, SDA,
collaboration, creativity, online teams, virtual teams, design thinking]
iii
BUILDING BRIDGES
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Randy Siebold – I had no idea the journey we would travel after that first phone call. I am
thankful for your support and belief in me throughout this endeavor. Thank you for being a
wonderful advisor.
Jay Brand – Thank you for pushing for my very best, encouraging me to stay true to my calling,
and helping me to stay focused!
Leadership and Learning Group – Our monthly meetings and regular Whatsup chats have
meant the world to me. Having you in my corner has been more encouraging than you will ever
know. I appreciate every one of you and will continue to cheer you on!
Mom and Dad – You have always told me to follow God and that He will give us the ability to
fulfill His calling. Thank you for your many prayers, support and belief in me!
Ashley – …and the student became the teacher. I’m glad I had the opportunity to teach you to
write so that later you could become my editor! Thank you for taking the time to read and edit
my many papers. My daughter, your friendship, encouragement, and belief in my writing ability
kept me going.
Brice – Always remember, it’s never too late! I love you!
Shelly– Thank you for your help with this project and the many conversations about
homeschooling!
Harley– My dear husband, words cannot express how much you mean to me! You never once
complained about the many hours I spent studying, doubted my abilities, or the events I couldn't
attend because of papers. I love you.
God – Thank you for your promise that you will not give us more than we can endure. For
giving me a calling and the creativity necessary to accomplish your plans. Thank you for your
enduring love and patience.

iv
BUILDING BRIDGES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... V
LIST OF TERMS ............................................................................................................................ 1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 2
Innovation Project Introduction ...................................................................................................... 2
Adventist Education................................................................................................................. 3
Homeschooling’s Relationship with Public Schools ............................................................... 3
Homeschooling’s Relationship with Adventist Education ...................................................... 4
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................................ 5
Purpose and Goals........................................................................................................................... 6
Project Description.......................................................................................................................... 6
Evaluation Methods ........................................................................................................................ 7
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE ........................................................................................................ 8
Homeschooling Research................................................................................................................ 8
Studies Relating to Adventists ................................................................................................. 9

Precedence on Collaboration ................................................................................................. 10
Collaboration Study ............................................................................................................... 11
Creativity and the Christian .......................................................................................................... 14
Innovation ..................................................................................................................................... 16
Design Thinking............................................................................................................................ 18
Virtual Collaboration .................................................................................................................... 23
CHAPTER 3. IMPLEMENTATION........................................................................................... 26
Project Implementation ................................................................................................................. 26
Preparation ............................................................................................................................. 26
v
BUILDING BRIDGES
Participants and Scheduling .............................................................................................. 27

Goodie boxes .................................................................................................................... 29
Meeting #1 ............................................................................................................................. 29
Meeting #2 ............................................................................................................................. 31
CHAPTER 4. IMPLEMENTATION OUTCOMES................................................................... 33
Implementation Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 33
Approach and Methodology ......................................................................................................... 33
Data Collection ............................................................................................................................. 34
Implementation Outcome Findings............................................................................................... 34
CHAPTER 5. PROJECT EVALUATION ................................................................................. 37
Project Evaluation Approach ........................................................................................................ 37
Approach and Methodology ......................................................................................................... 37
Data Collection ............................................................................................................................. 37
Project Evaluation Results ............................................................................................................ 38
CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................... 42
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 44
Recommendations for the Future .................................................................................................. 46
REFERENCES CITED ................................................................................................................. 45
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................... 53
Figures........................................................................................................................................... 53
APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................... 54
Artifacts......................................................................................................................................... 54
APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................................... 73
SurveyMonkey Comments............................................................................................................ 73
vi
TITLE OF ESSAY
LIST OF TERMS
Adventist education – refers to all levels of Adventist education such as local school,
Conference, Union, and North American Division of Seventh-day Adventist.
Adventist homeschooling – refers to any Seventh-day Adventist family that home educates their
children.
1
BUILDING BRIDGES
CHAPTER 1.
INTRODUCTION
Innovation Project Introduction

Education has played an important role in the history of civilization since creation. The
first examples of education were of those who educated in the home, making homeschooling the
longest standing method of education. Parents were instructed to teach their children the laws of
God (Deut. 6:6-9) while Abraham was told to also teach his household the ways of God ( Gen
18:19). It was a parents’ sacred duty to educate their children for God. Samuel is credited with
formalizing the schools of the prophets for those who wanted to further their understanding of
God’s Word beyond what their parents could teach (White, 1890, p. 593.1). These schools also
became a way to educate children whose parents neglected the Godly training required of them
such as Eli (White, 1903, p. 45.1; 1923, p. 96.3).
Later, the Bible records that Jesus was taught at home by his mother Mary rather than at
the schools of the rabbis. His education was so complete that the rabbis were astonished and
spent two days questioning and listening to him (White, 1898, p. 78.6).
Moving forward in time to the reformation, reformers such as Luther and Calvin
supported the establishment of schools (Perrin, 1896) because without the ability to read, the
common people were unable to read the Bible for themselves. Education was determined to be
important for the distribution of the Bible, the growth of the church, and the formation of a
strong society.
From its earliest inception, the United States (U.S.) made education of the youth an
important part of the developing country. The year 1642 marks the first education legislation, by
Massachusetts, requiring the education of the youth either by brick-and-mortar schools or home
education. The latter was responsible for producing ten former U.S. presidents, many of the
2
BUILDING BRIDGES
delegates of the constitutional convention (Klicka, 2002, p. 164), and all the “Founding Fathers”
(McMullen, 2002, p. 2). Eventually, with the industrial age came the first compulsory education
laws (1852) in an effort to protect against child labor and indoctrinate the many immigrants
coming into the U.S. in search of work.
Adventist Education
The Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) church, in its infancy at the time, began to take notice
of the compulsory school movement. In order to meet the needs of those parents who felt
inadequate to educate their children, families joined together and started schools in homes of
church members to meet the needs of educating their children in the way of the Lord (Burton,
1987). Later, the first SDA sponsored school opened in 1864. In 1872 White received her first
vision that detailed God’s plan for the education of His people. Adventist education has
flourished and eventually became the preferred educational choice for most Adventist parents.
While most parents sent their children to church schools and public schools, some still chose to
home educate. In 1925, Cady wrote an article for the Home and School: A Journal of Christian
Education, advocating that the homeschool was still the ideal choice for education of the youth.
Homeschooling’s Relationship with Public Schools
In the last twenty years homeschooling has finally become a more socially acceptable and
legal educational choice in America, but educational leaders have found it hard to accept this
educational choice. Teacher unions have fought legislation to allow homeschooling, while many
public schools have come to recognize the need to change their attitudes toward homeschooling
families in order to regain federal funds lost from homeschoolers leaving the system. Many
public schools have started to offer a collaborative relationship with the families, even offering
part-time enrollments with optional offerings.
3
BUILDING BRIDGES
Public school districts recognize that a key to success is in embracing the fundamentally
different view of the relationship between the parent and the school. Cline (as cited by Yaffe,
2015), director of IDEA (Interior Distance Education in Alaska), Alaska’s longest running public
homeschooling program, states the need to understand that it’s “all about customer service and
honoring the parents as the primary instructor of their children” (p.48).
The public sector has many examples of how they are learning to collaborate with
homeschooling families. Lines (2000) suggests that homeschooling is now, many times blended
with school offerings in traditional classes, internet courses, independent study, and parental
instruction. Lines (1986) also suggests that private schools are in a unique position to offer
collaboration that will not threaten the philosophical views of many homeschooling families.
Studies indicate that homeschooling parents are interested in collaboration to supplement their
offerings at home (Angelis, 2008; Yeager, 1999).
Homeschooling’s Relationship with Adventist Education
Historically, Adventist education has focused on supporting and sustaining brick-and-
mortar schools but are now struggling to see what the future will look like. In a recent report, the
North American Division (NAD) Education Taskforce (NADET) recognized that
significant innovation is needed to develop avenues for interaction with our children and
youth. We need innovation to enable the Church to pass along to them our beliefs and our
values, and to connect them in fellowship with our Church (North American Division, 2016,
p. 28).
Adventist education may benefit from investing in nonlinear innovations, which
Govindarajan (2016) defines as “nonconforming and therefore both uncertain and threatening”
(p. 16), in order to fulfill its “educational mission effectively, efficiently and excellently” (North
American Division, 2016, p. 2). NADET also recommended seeking “ways the Church may
provide support and resources to parents who home school their children” (p. 32). This means
4
BUILDING BRIDGES
looking for ways to create new business models with new customers and creating new practices
in our schools that will be innovative and look different than ‘school as usual’.
In recent years, innovation has become vital to organizations needing to keep a
competitive edge because it allows them to “diversify, adapt, and even reinvent themselves to
match evolving market…conditions” (Gibson, C. B. & Gibb, 2006, p. 451) and design thinking
is currently being used as a way to bring about transformative change and new innovations.
Using this method of creativity could help Adventist education meet their need to develop a
relationship that will meet their educational goals and connect the youth in fellowship with the
church.
Today, Adventist families are choosing to educate their children at home. As many
leaders in Adventist education have focused on traditional schools, it seems like many Adventist
homeschooling families are left wondering how or if they fit into Adventist education. Too
often, homeschooling families have felt like outsiders to Adventist education rather than
participants. From my experience in both classroom teaching, homeschooling, and discussions
with other homeschooling parents Adventist homeschooling parents would welcome a
partnership with Adventist education. This partnership would create a bridge making Adventist
homeschooling a part of the educational ministry of the church which could benefit both
Adventist education and Adventist homeschooling families.
Statement of the Problem

The current trends in homeschooling lean toward offering collaboration between schools
and homeschooling parents (Gaither, 2009; Lines, 2000; Yeager, 1999). Adventist education
could benefit from creative innovations to build bridges of partnership and collaboration that
would include home educating as a part of the educational ministry of the church to young
people.
5
BUILDING BRIDGES
Purpose and Goals

The purpose of this project was to find ways of helping Adventist education work
together with homeschoolers by facilitating a panel of Adventist educators in an online
innovation experience using a design thinking process.
This project was intended to accomplish the following goals:
1. To use an online experience of design thinking to explore what Adventist
education can do to create a bridge of collaboration.
2. To evaluate whether an online design thinking experience could be useful in
building a bridge of collaboration.
Project Description
Senge et al. (2012) postulates that for change to be sustainable, it must come from a
shared vision of its stakeholders. This innovation project was about exploring the online use of
design thinking to change the relationship between Adventist education and Adventist
homeschooling. If lasting change is to occur, then creating a panel of individuals that represents
a cross-section of stakeholders,who could explore options for better collaboration and provide
input given their expertise, would be a step toward that end. The plan was to utilize the
theoretical framework of design thinking to guide the format of the panel as they sought to meet
the second goal of this innovation project.
The participants chosen for this panel included an Adventist conference superintendent, a
college professor in the education department at an Adventist college/university, a former
Adventist homeschooling mom who was also a homeschooling co-op organizer, an Adventist
elementary teacher/principal, an Adventist academy teacher, and an Adventist pastor. A trio of
Adventist homeschooling moms were invited to share their homeschooling stories and to voice
their perspectives on ways to collaborate.
6
BUILDING BRIDGES
The panel was held via an online video-conferencing app due to the disparity of
geographical distance among the participants and lack of traveling funds. This ultimately
brought challenges when altering a traditionally hands-on face-to-face experience into an online
experience. The panel met for two hours and towards the end recognized the need to spend more
time working through the design thinking framework because most of the time was spent on the
empathy step as we listened to the perspectives shared by our homeschooling parents. When
asked if they would be willing to meet again, the participants agreed and met for another session
the following week for one hour.
There were two distinctly different data collections taken during the course of this
project. The first was qualitative in nature and collected during the online panel event which
included a video recording of the event and field notes taken during the event.
Evaluation Methods
The second set of data were collected in an effort to evaluate whether an online design
thinking experience could be useful in building a bridge of collaboration. Data were gathered
from the participants in the forms of a survey from SurveyMonkey, field notes taken during the
event, and my experience during the process. This allowed for both a quantitative and
qualitative evaluation of the overall effectiveness of the event. The survey focused around the
areas of 1) planning/preparation of the event, 2) use of digital technology, 3) length of the event,
4) meeting the goals of the innovation project.
The subsequent chapter will reveal the literature relating to the topics of virtual
collaboration, design thinking and creativity as well as their potential role in changing the
relationship between Adventist education and Adventist homeschooling.
7
BUILDING BRIDGES
CHAPTER 2.
LITERATURE
The purpose of this literature review was to understand what has previously been written
that would guide understanding on the best methods to finding ways of helping Adventist
education work together with homeschoolers by facilitating a panel of Adventist educators in an
online innovation experience using a design thinking process. It was important to have an
understanding of each of the elements of this study.
Understanding that Adventist education has never attempted this type of collaboration, I
concluded it would take creativity to develop a plan. I turned to design thinking as a potential
framework to stimulate innovation.
Due to the nature of the geographic diversity of the participants and the lack of financial
funding, it was clear that this project would need to be virtual. With that in mind, I focused my
research on the role of virtual collaboration in creativity and innovation.
Therefore, this literature review will focus on the research available on Adventist
homeschooling, homeschooling collaborations, design thinking, creativity and innovation, and
virtual collaboration as it relates to creativity and innovation.
Homeschooling Research
Research on home educating in general is becoming more available as interest in this
educational choice has peaked, but little has been done in the area of Adventist home educating.
In a search on Google Scholar and Andrew University’s Dissertations, four documents were
found that referred to Adventist home educating as it relates specifically to Adventist education.
Additionally, there were several studies that spoke to the issue of collaboration in general of
homeschools and brick and mortar schools that could be pertinent to this topic.
8
BUILDING BRIDGES
In an effort to narrow and organize the research on homeschooling, I chose to focus on
studies that focus on homeschooling as it relates to Adventist, the precedence of collaborations
between schools and homeschooling families, and a specific study conducted in Texas about
private school collaboration.
Studies Relating to Adventists
Two existing studies that mentioned homeschooling are by LaBorde (2007) and DeVost
(2010). LaBorde seeks the answer to the reason Adventists choose schools other than Adventist.
DeVost asks the question, what Adventists consider important in choosing schools. But neither
speak to the question of how church schools could work with and support home educating
families.
Two recent studies have marginally suggested exploration of collaboration possibilities.
The first one, Strengthening Adventist Education (Thayer & Coria-Navia, 2016), gave twenty-
seven recommendations covering seven thematic areas to strengthen Adventist education.
Although collaboration was not mentioned in the recommendations, it was mentioned in several
of the strategies not included in the recommendations later voted by the NAD. They are as
follows:
• “Educational Leaders Strategy #9: Have a system-wide strategic plan for providing some
Adventist Education for all SDA school –age children not in an Adventist school” (p. 43).
The group suggested this should be covered through technology. Another strategy they
suggested was the following,
• “Educational Leaders Strategy #34: Develop materials that can be used by Adventist
children not in Adventist schools (e.g., homeschools and other private/parochial/public
schools) (p. 46).
The second source of information comes from the NADET report that includes their final
9
BUILDING BRIDGES
recommendations presented to the NAD year-end meeting in October 2016. There were no
specific recommendations made with connection to home educating, but Recommendation #7
suggested that the Church grow distance learning opportunities in order to provide “multiple
strategies to ensure that all Adventist students, both within our schools and those that make other
educational choices, have access to relevant denominational educational materials” (North
American Division, 2016, p. 20). This statement recognizes the need to reach a “broader swath
of Adventist families” (p. 20).
Precedence on Collaboration
Is there a precedence for collaboration between traditional education and home
educating families? In her article for DirectAdministration, Yaffe (2015) gives a large
overview of homeschool connections that have been made all over the country. Alaska
is well known for its large scale work with home educating families, but other states
such as Washington, Arizona, and Virginia just to name a few, have also learned to
collaborate. Kunzman states “districts have become increasingly attentive to their
homeschool population, they’re paying attention in terms of how we can draw them in
or collaborate with parents or provide different services” (as cited by Yaffe, 2015, p.
45). Public schools are learning the “most important prerequisite for success” in
collaboration is to embrace “a fundamentally different view of the parent-school
relationship” (p. 48). According to Cline, the director of Alaska’s IDEA program,
public education has recognized the importance of learning “customer service and
honoring the parents as the primary instructor of their children”(Yaffe, 2015, p. 48).
10
BUILDING BRIDGES
Lines, a former associate at the National Institute on Student Achievement,
Curriculum and Assessment, a part of the U.S. Department of Education, suggests that
in
the new paradigm, children can learn alone or in groups from 2 to 30; they can be widely
different ages. Schools, teachers, and other professionals would provide the services;
families would make the choices. Schools can advise them; offer curricular support; offer
classes–on and off campus– and provide testing, transportation, and other auxiliary services.
Parents and children can determine the mix each individual child will have of on-and-off
campus classes, of independent study and guided study, of computer-assisted instruction, and
of personal attention from a teacher (Lines, 2000, p. 185).
Lines warns public schools to be “more flexible than school districts have been since
parents gathered together to construct the one-room country schoolhouse” (p.185).
For those who homeschool because of philosophical/religious reasons, creating a
partnership with public education is troubling. Homeschoolers who participate in these
programs are traditionally not allowed to use religious curriculum. That makes public
education programs unviable to many home educating families. Lines (1986) recognizes
that private schools are in a unique position to offer collaboration that will not threaten the
philosophical views of many homeschooling families. She suggests that “private schools
also might consider part-time enrollment options for home schoolers” (as cited by
Yeager, 1999, pp. 14-15). But the question must be asked, would homeschoolers want
collaboration with private schools and would private schools be interested in such
collaboration?
Collaboration Study
Another study that could prove useful to the concept of collaboration was done by Yeager
(1999). In this study he surveyed 500 public school superintendents, 500 private school
administrators, and 500 home educating families. Of these three groups he received back 46.2%
11
BUILDING BRIDGES
from the private school administrators, 56% from the public school superintendents and 32.8 %
from the home educating families. It was from this data set that he drew his conclusions.
In his dissertation Yeager (1999) asked if Texas home educators want public
and/or private school collaboration. From his findings he drew eight conclusions
regarding Texas home educating families. Of these eight conclusions, three relate to
the questions regarding an interest in private school offerings or collaboration. The
conclusions are as follows:
• Texas home educators indicated they would prefer the services and
cooperative programs offered by private schools, particularly private
Christian schools, rather than those offered by public schools.
• A narrowly confined area of cooperation between some local private
schools and local home educating families existed in Texas.
• The response to private school programs or services may have indicated
that a narrowly confined potential for home school / private school on a
state wide basis existed (Yeager, 1999, pp. v-vi).
The areas of interest questioned in Yeager’s study point toward seven private school
services that could be of interest to home educating families. They are listed in
descending order of significance;
• Participation in group activities such as band or choir at a private school

• To be able to enroll my child part-time in extra-curricular activities at a
private school
• Achievement testing at a private school
• Participation in sports programs at a private school
• Part-time enrollment in certain private school courses
• Participation in academic competition at a private school
• Special education testing or courses at a private school (p. 232)
From these findings we see that there are indeed services that home schooling families would be
interested in participating. But the question about the private school administrator’s willingness
to offer such services still needed to be answered.
12
BUILDING BRIDGES
Yeager (1999) sent out 500 survey packets to private school administrators in Texas and
received 231 responses (p. 98). From those surveyed he concluded that “many Texas private
school administrators were either offering or willing to offer cooperative programs or services to
local home educating families only with a narrowly confined area” (p. 241). Later in his
recommendations for further study he comments that
private school administrators should again be surveyed due to a misunderstanding expressed

by several of the private school respondents that they were being asked to donate their
private school services instead of marketing them to home educators on a service rendered
basis (p. 243-44).
It should be noted that some of the private school administrators answered these surveys with the
assumption that that they would be donating their services. Even with that assumption, they
were still willing on a “narrowly confined manner”. Their responses could be quite different
with the clarification made in regards to a fee for service format. Could this be a way to bring
about change to Adventist education?
Senge et al. (2012) suggests shifting the thinking and changing the conversations can
“create a possible new future” (p. 480).
Angelis (2008), although primarily focused on home educators collaboration with public
schools in Maryland found that
the vast majority of home schooled families interviewed would be interested in the
opportunity to enroll their children in classes which they do not feel comfortable with or
have the expertise to teach such as higher level sciences, mathematics, and foreign
language courses (p. 124).
Angelis also noted that many
public school educators in these states are encouraging open communication with home
schooling families in an attempt to shed an adversarial atmosphere and forge new alliances.
Moreover, home schooling families are seeing the advantages associated with these new
partnerships through additional services and the recognition that their children may
eventually return to the public school system (p. 132).
Although this study is specific to public school, it is important to note that Adventist
13
BUILDING BRIDGES
education has in the past, and could see in the future, the same potential for future full-time
enrollment by home educating families. Romanowski (2001) believes that if educators work
with, instead of against home educating families they would create a "climate of mutual
understanding and respect” (Romanowski, 2001, p. 2) that could realize benefits for both the
school and the family. Adventist education could benefit from the positive contributions that
home educating families could offer.
As stated earlier, this level of collaboration is new to Adventist education. It would take
creativity to explore what Adventist education can do to create a bridge for collaboration.
Creativity and the Christian

There are many definitions of creativity. Some think of creativity as the work of artists
while others suggest that creativity is defined as originality. Webster defines creativity as the
“ability to create, the quality of being creative” (Merriam-Webster, 2018a). I like the definition
that Wilson gives in her blog “The Second Principal”. She states that
in the act of creating, or in solving problems in creative ways, we often go round and round
in endless circles wanting to pounce on an idea. Sometimes the answer or solution is right
before our eyes but we can’t see it. In order to find the solution, find the missing piece, solve
the problem, we need to just look at something familiar in a new and different way. (Wilson,
2018)
From the Christian perspective, we are only able to create from something that God has
already placed on this earth. He is the original creator. Brand (2017) explains it like this,
The Hebrew word translated ‘created’ implies a divine act bringing something from nothing,
creation ex nihilo. Thus, only God can create truly ‘from scratch’ – providing His own raw
materials. In this sense, any and all creativity and innovation by humans involves the diligent
use of resources already provided by God. (p. 3)
Our ability to create can only come from God. He endows each person with the creative spark.
Whether it is the ability to create works of art like Monet, music like Beethoven, or a new way to
deliver clean water in third world countries. Each of us has been given the ability to create
(Kelley & Kelley, 2013). It is up to us to determine how our gift is employed.
14
BUILDING BRIDGES
Raynor (2017) suggests that because man was placed in the garden of Eden to work it
prior to sin, God was telling us that work was good for mankind. White (1954) states,
When in counsel with the Father before the world was, it was designed that the Lord God
should plant a garden for Adam and Eve in Eden and give them the task of caring for the fruit
trees and cultivating and training the vegetation. Useful labor was to be their safeguard, and
it was to be perpetuated through all generations to the close of earth's history. (p. 345.2)
Prior to officially starting his ministry, Christ worked with His hands as a common
laborer, yet He was unwilling to accept anything less than perfection in Himself and in His work
(White, 1923). Everything He made was perfect (White, 1946). From His earliest years Christ
made it His purpose to find ways to bless others (White, 1898). Because we are to follow in His
example, we too must find work that allows us to help others. Again White (1943) states, “in the
children and youth an ambition should be awakened to take their exercise in doing something
that will be beneficial to themselves and helpful to others” (p. 147).
Raynor (2017) suggests the work of the Christian entrepreneur is to determine what the
calling of God is on our lives. We are to find ways to serve His people. He makes the point that
just like the calling a minister or teacher might feel for their field, creatives (those who think of
themselves as a creative person) must recognize that they are just as called into the mission field
that is life.
Following the call to create means that we no longer work to make a name for ourselves; we
work for the glory of the One who has called us. In the words of the apostle Paul, “Whatever
you do, do it all for the glory of God” (1 Cor.10:31). (p. 74)
If we have been called to create, then we need to find ways to grow our creative ability.
Kelley and Kelly (2013) liken what they call creative confidence (the belief in your ability to
create change in the word around you) to a muscle that needs to be “strengthened and nurtured
through effort and experience” (Kelley & Kelley, 2013, p. 16). We must find ways to stretch
ourselves, try new things, and create something different.
15
BUILDING BRIDGES
This is what innovation is all about. Creating something new. The next section looks at
what innovation is and ways to encourage innovation.
Innovation
“Creative capacity is the heart of innovation” (Kelley & Kelley, 2013, p. 16). In today’s
market, innovation is the life blood of companies that want to flourish. With constantly
changing technologies, businesses and organizations must find a way to adapt. So what is
‘innovation’? The dictionary defines it as “the introduction of something new, a new idea,
method, or device” (Merriam-Webster, 2018b). Another definition of innovation is, “Innovation
is the multi-stage process whereby organizations transform ideas into new/improved products,
service or processes, in order to advance, compete and differentiate themselves successfully in
their marketplace” (Baregheh, Rowley, & Sambrook, 2009, p. 1334).
Managing creativity that leads to innovation takes a different type of management than
traditional routine work (Sutton, 2011). This may explain why Catmull (2014) makes the
following comment,
Figuring out how to build a sustainable creative culture — one that didn’t just pay lip service
to the importance of things like honesty, excellence, communication, originality, and self -
assessment but really committed to them, no matter how uncomfortable that became —
wasn’t a singular assignment. It was a day - in - day - out full - time job. (p. 65).
Leaders and managers alike must make allowances for creativity in their organizations and seek
methods to nurture the creativity within their doors (Caniels & Rietzschel, 2015).
How can a leader/manager nurture creativity? There are different ideas on ways this can
be accomplished. Sutton (2011) lists 10 that he calls “weird ideas” (p. 347) that he believes
support workplace creativity.
• “The best management is sometimes no management” (p. 349).
16
BUILDING BRIDGES
• “Innovation means selling, not just inventing new ideas” (p. 349). The innovator must be
able to sell his ideas if he wants to convince others of their need for the new idea or product.
• “Innovation requires both flexibility and rigidity” (p. 350).
• Incite and uncover discomfort (p. 351)
• Treat everything like a temporary condition (p. 352)
• Make the process as simple as possible (p. 353)
• Innovation means living with some nasty drawbacks (p. 354)
• Learn to fail faster, not less often (p. 354)
• Open is good, closed is bad (p. 355)
• Have an attitude of innovation (p. 356)
In his book, Catmull (2014), describes the difference between the creative rich
environment of Pixar with their individualized workspaces (pink dollhouse and tiki hut themes)
with the sterile un-personalized workspaces of those at then creative poor Disney animation.
The outward adornment was only the visible manifestation of the condition of the workers
‘practiced creativity’ a term that describes the “extent to which employees perceive themselves
to be able to actually exploit their creative potential at work” (Caniels & Rietzschel, 2015, p.
186). Disney animators were in a position where it was necessary that they be creative and
innovative, but instead, they were finding themselves in a long dry spell of new innovative
stories. Had they lost their ability to create or was the problem more fundamental at the
organizational level?
In their literature review, Schultz, Geithner, Woelfel and Krzywinski (2015) found that
play is an integral part of innovation.
When play happens within a medium for learning it creates a context in which information,
ideas and passions grow (Thomas & Brown, 2011). Play is a source of creativity (
17
BUILDING BRIDGES
Mainemelis & Ronson, 2006) and therefore a trigger for innovation....Play addresses the
cognitive, emotional and social dimension of learning (Bogers & Sproedt, 2012). Therefore,
the role of play in organization is becoming increasingly important (Mainemelis & Altman,
2010; Sorensen & Spoelstra, 2012). (Schulz, Geithner, Woelfel, & Krzyinski, 2015, p. 326)
This type of play is not the typical board game or even sport game. While playing sports may
actually increase the creative potential due to endorphins released to the brain, this is not the type
of play suggested. This form of play is referred to as “serious play” (Schulz et al., 2015) that is
more the use of toolkits that allow the person to “think with the hands through creating a model
(Roos & Victor, 1999)” (p. 326). It is goal oriented and intentional in nature (Schulz et al.,
2015). Serious play allows the individual to “integrate the two facets of creative action:
composition and improvisation” (as cited by Schulz et al., 2015, p. 327). Later in this paper I
will expand on the idea of how play is important in design thinking.
Because one of the goals of this project was to use design thinking to explore what
Adventist education can do to create a bridge of collaboration, it was necessary to understand the
purpose and process of design thinking.
Design Thinking
Design thinking is defined by Tim Brown (2018) as,
…a human-centered approach to innovation that draws from the designer's toolkit to

integrate the needs of people, the possibilities of technology, and the requirements for
business success. (Brown, 2018)
Sometimes referred to as human-centered design or empathy design, this approach to innovation
starts first with the end user in mind by seeking to find their true needs. Henry Ford is quoted as
saying, “If I’d asked my customers what they wanted, they’d have said ‘a faster horse’” (Brown
& Wyatt, 2007, p. 33). Design thinking seeks to use empathy to understand the unspoken needs
of the user (Battarbee, Suri, & Howard, 2014). Empathy design also seeks to answer the design
challenges of today’s global organizations that are struggling to meet the differing needs of their
stakeholders. How does this work? By unlocking the hearts and minds of the organization
18
BUILDING BRIDGES
toward their stakeholders, they are also unlocking their creative capacity for innovation
(Battarbee et al., 2014). The stakeholders and end users become partners in the innovation
process making the final product more useful and ensuring more loyalty toward the brand
(Tschimmel, 2012).
Design thinking has been explained in several differing models. For example, Hasso-
Pattner Institute uses what they call Design Thinking model, the British Council utilizes their
Double Diamond Model, and Stickdorn and Schneider has what they call the Service Design
Thinking Model. The two which are possibly the best known (Tschimmel, 2012) have been
designed by the IDEO design agency. IDEO’s 3 I’s (inspiration, ideation and implementation)
and HCD (human centered design) (Brown & Wyatt, 2007). The HCD approach is explained as,
“…help[ing] you hear the needs of constituents in new ways, create innovative solutions to meet
those needs, and deliver solutions with financial sustainability in mind” (Tschimmel, 2012, p. 7).
Today design thinking is not only a mindset, it has become an “effective toolkit for any
innovation process, connecting the creative design approach to traditional business thinking,
based on planning and rational problem solving” (Tschimmel, 2012, p. 2).
Although each of the models listed above use different terminology, yet the principles are
still quite similar. There are five principles or stages in design thinking, but the beginning
typically starts with what is referred to as the “brief” (Brown, 2009, p. 22). This is the problem
statement. Yayici (2016) suggests using the phrase “how might we….” (p. 19) to build the
problem statement while being careful not to make the problem too broad or to narrow.
Chamekiotis, Dekoninck and Panteli (2013) believe that not all projects require the same level of
creativity but that it is the brief that determines the degree of creativity that will be needed. It
may include the objectives or constraints for the design team such as the “price point, available
19
BUILDING BRIDGES
technology, [and] market segment…” (p. 22). Below are the basic principles with brief
descriptions of each.
• Empathy. Interview by asking open ended questions, watching body language, observe if
possible. Experientially research to determine the true needs (Brown, 2009; Tonhauser,
2016; Yayici, 2016).
• Reframe. Narrow down the scope of the problem.
• Ideate. Create ideas for solutions from the information received. This may be thought of
as creative brainstorming. Defer judgements, create as many ideas as possible even if
they seem off the wall. Build on other’s ideas. Be visual (Brown, 2009; IDEO, 2018;
Tonhauser, 2016; Yayici, 2016).
• Prototype. Build tangible prototypes or story boards to show the idea created. This can
be done using many different mediums. The goal is to determine strengths or
weaknesses. Here is where serious play takes place as designers seek to “build” their
ideas (Brown, 2009; Schulz et al., 2015; Tonhauser, 2016; Yayici, 2016).
• Test. Test to see how the idea performs and whether refinement is necessary (Brown,
2009; Tonhauser, 2016; Yayici, 2016).
The figure below illustrates the interconnectivity of these processes and has broken them
down further than the basic 5 for easier clarification. At every step along the way, a new piece
of information may make the design team circle back to a previous stage in the process. This is
an iterative process.
20
BUILDING BRIDGES
Figure 1. Stages taken from https://inchoo.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/design-thinking-2.png
Brown (2009) explains that the nonlinear or cyclical aspect of this type of thinking is not
from an unorganized process, rather from an exploratory way of thinking through the problem.
We are given the ability to rethink and refine the ideas as many times as necessary to achieve the
best outcome.
Govindarajan (2016) suggests using a three-box solution to balance linear and non-linear
activities within an organization. Box 1 is important to the current daily management of the
school, using “linear ideas (those that conform to the past) tend to be adopted easily”
(Govindarajan, 2016, p. 16). These are the practices that have served well in the past and made
the school system successful.
In Box 2, schools start to “build the future by creating space and supporting structure for
new non-linear ideas” (Govindarajan, 2016, p. 10). This box is important because it allows the
21
BUILDING BRIDGES
school to take stock of what is working and more importantly, discard practices, ideas, and
attitudes no longer relevant.
The box 2 work of avoiding the traps of the past is difficult and painful. It may require
wrenching management decisions to divest long-standing lines of business or to abandon
entrenched practices and attitudes that are unwelcoming or even hostile to ideas that don’t
conform to the dominant model of past success (Govindarajan, 2016, p. 11).
Schools have a long history of avoiding change on the grander scale. One example of this is the
fact that schools are still functioning as they were designed during the industrial era, like an
assembly line with all the students expected to meet the same expectations regardless of
individuality (Senge et al., 2012, p. 44).
Box 3 is about planning with the future in mind. One implication might be that schools
need to be willing to learn in new ways, to innovate and step away from the tried and true.
Experiment and learn from the failures to create better educational experiences. “Organizations
that do not continuously learn new things will die” (Govindarajan, 2016, p. 13). This is very
difficult for schools or any organization for that matter, because “nonlinear ideas
(nonconforming and therefore both uncertain and threatening) tend to be rejected easily” (p. 16).
Many times, these ideas are what might be called “outside the box” and while schools may
believe that the future will look different, the reality many times shows that the ideas are dubbed
to be too forward thinking and thus thrown out. Govindarajan (2016) suggests,
…nonlinear innovations, the domain of Box 3, create new business models by dramatically
(1) redefining your set of customers, (2) reinventing the value you offer them, and/or (3)
redesigning the end-to-end value-chain architecture by which you deliver that value (p. 18).
Because we need to take a new look at who our customers are and what we can do to support
them, we will need to look ‘outside the box’ for ideas that will support new innovation. This is
especially important during the ideate stage of design thinking.
22
BUILDING BRIDGES
Lastly, because this project used an online design thinking experience, it was important to
understand the advantages and detriments of virtual collaboration. What advice could be found
that would make this project successful?
Virtual Collaboration
Townsend, Demarie and Hendrickson (1998) define VTs as “groups of geographically and
/or organizationally dispersed co-workers that are assembled using a combination of
telecommunications and information technologies to accomplish an organizational task” (as cited
by Chamakiotis et al., 2013, p. 267). The key component of VTs is their geographic dispersion
and thus the use of computer-mediated communication (Gibson, C., 2011; Hoegl & Proserpio,
2004).
According to the research, there are many factors at play in determining the effectiveness
of VTs. Some believe that VTs are “characterized by different levels of technological support,
physical distance and temporal separation”(Chamakiotis et al., 2013, p. 268). Nemiro (2007)
found five areas that organizations need to be strong in for VT’s to flourish. They are;
“design (e.g., processes/structures), climate (e.g. interpersonal connection), resources (e.g.
pertinent technology), norms and protocols ( communication behavior norms) and continual
assessment and learning (e.g. evaluation)” (p. 268). Both the climate of the workplace and
communication behavior norms are areas that surfaced in several of the articles on the topic. In
the following paragraphs, we will look at both areas in greater depth.
Many organizations have a ‘water cooler’ spot in their organization. Interpersonal
connections with their co-workers play an important role in group dynamics and productivity.
Amabile and Kramer (2011) refer to this as the “inner work life” (p. 159) which has a direct
effect on a person’s work performance. In fact, “in settings where people must work
collaboratively to solve vexing problem, high performance depends on four elements: creativity,
23
BUILDING BRIDGES
productivity, commitment, and collegiality” (p. 166). This leads to the conclusion that creativity
which drives innovation is tied to the person’s emotions about their work and co-workers.
Interestingly, higher levels of creativity were tied to positive emotion and negative feelings were
tied to lowered creativity and “people were over 50% more likely to have creative ideas on the
days they reported the most positive moods than they were on other days” (p. 166).
Not only do interpersonal encounters have the capacity to create higher creativity, they
also allow for a certain amount of trust to be developed. Gibson (2011) refers to this as a
“mutual or collective trust…that is characterized by an acceptance of vulnerability based on
expectations of intentions or behaviors of other within the team” (p. 307). She reminds us that
the factors that contribute to these feelings are often absent in VTs. “People tend to trust those
whom they perceive as similar to themselves” (p. 307) and this comes through regular
communication. Which leads us to the next important component to successful VTs.
Communication is the key factor to many successful ventures. The ability to articulate
thoughts and ideas, to accurately understand what others are saying by their verbal and non-
verbal communication is an important skill for almost any worker within any organization. I
mentioned above the importance of interpersonal relationships between co-workers. One of the
side benefits of such encounters are the visual cues we give and receive from others that help to
tell us more about them.
Because most “communication is nonverbal (Burgoon et al., 1989; Knapp, 1980; Seiter,
1988; Weiser, 1988; Mehrabian, 1971; Bird-whistell, 1970)” (Zaltman & Coulter, 1995, p. 37),
those who participate in VTs are at a distinct disadvantage. According to Knapp (1980) “when
there is an apparent contradiction, nonverbal cues tend to be believed over verbal ones” (as cited
by Zaltman & Coulter, 1995, p. 37). This can account for the relationships that are built as co-
24
BUILDING BRIDGES
workers are walking the halls, sitting around the boardroom table etc. Those who are dependent
on technology-based communication many times find it difficult to develop those relationships
because they are lacking the necessary visual nonverbal cues that we rely on in our
communication (Gressgard, 2010). Chamakiotis et al. (2013) goes so far as to say that nonverbal
communication skills are necessary for creativity and level of engagement in VTs. This may be
the reason that VTs can be vulnerable to mistrust, communication breakdowns etc. (Ale
Ebrahim, Ahmed, & Taha, 2009).
Ultimately, VTs will need to develop strategies to build team spirit, communication and
trust. The more real-time conversations that take place (i.e. Zoom or Skype) the less of a chance
of communication breakdown. Most of the literature suggests that there should be some in-
person face-to-face meetings if possible (Gibson, C., 2011; Kirkman & Hartog, 2011;
Majchrzak, Rice, King, Mahotra, & Ba, 2000). This could be beneficial at the beginning of the
project so that the team members have a social experience with the team members in order to
find commonalities and shared experiences that help to build trust.
This chapter addressed the literature pertinent to online design thinking experiences as
well as the issues germane to collaboration of Adventist education with Adventist
homeschooling. The next chapter will present the plans and thought processes used in the
implementation of the ideas gleaned from this literature review.
25
BUILDING BRIDGES
CHAPTER 3.
IMPLEMENTATION
This chapter describes the plans, followed by the events as they occurred, and the thought
processes behind the decisions to show my endeavor to incorporate the strategies gleaned from
the literature review as well as implement design thinking as the framework.
innovation experience using a design thinking process
Project Preparation
In preparation for this event, 37 conference superintendents were contacted via email
requesting information on the following two questions: What is your conference policy toward
homeschooling and what programs do you have in place to support them? And secondly, who
do you have in your conference that are known for their positive collaborative relationship with
the homeschooling families in their area? Do you have any stars in this area? If so, can you
send the contact information for that school/administrator? Seven superintendents responded to
the email with varying answers (Artifact 1). It was my plan to contact those names given as
‘stars’ to ascertain what is currently happening in the field as background information.
Unfortunately, very few names were received and I received no informative responses from
those names.
26
BUILDING BRIDGES
Participants and Scheduling
Taking the participants on a weekend retreat would have the most ideal option to bond
the participants. This would allow for participants to develop better trust through relationship
building and finding common beliefs. Unfortunately, because of the geographical disparity of
the participants and a lack of funding, use of virtual technology was necessary rather than a
physical face-to-face retreat. Because of this decision, it was necessary to devise a means to
build a climate that would allow member to develop a comfortable relationship with each other
that would encourage trust and therefore enhance creativity.
Once it was determined to hold the panel in a virtual manner, the length then became a
concern. Asking professionals to take time away from their busy schedules was a concern and it
was felt that asking for a Sunday meeting would be best, but after conversation with several of
the participants, they requested the event take place as part of their workday instead. So the date
that was most convenient for the participants was September 27 at 9am EST. This would make it
early for those on the west coast, but those participants felt they could accommodate the time.
After the date and time for this event was determined, a schedule was developed to create
a timeline that would allow for each step of design thinking process to be met. At this time I also
created my own notes to guide me as facilitator (Artifact 4).
Another concern that came to mind was the time available for this event. Given the
online nature of the event, the participants agreed to two hours, which was generous from their
perspective, but was a concern for me as the facilitator. Working through the design thinking
process in only two hours would present a challenge due to the time required to process each of
the five steps of design thinking; create empathy, reframe the problem, brainstorm ideas (ideate),
27
BUILDING BRIDGES
and create hands on models of the ideas (prototyping), and then test the idea. Below is the
planned schedule.
Planned Schedule
9:00-9:30 Welcome, introduction of participants, prayer, opening of boxes, and share
the framework of design thinking. Give instructions for participants.
9:30-10:00 Empathy: Listen to the 3 guests and ask open ended questions.
10:00-10:15 Reframe/Define: Reframe the initial question to fit the needs expressed by
the homeschooling parents. What are they asking for and what do they
really want?
10:15-10:20 Ideate: Break group into partners, send them to Zoom break-out rooms.
10:20-10:30 Reconvene, narrow the ideas down to one or two ideas.
10:30-10:45 Prototype: Build prototypes
10:45-11:00 Test: Discuss the outcomes with the homeschooling parents. Close
with thanks and prayer.
The first step of design thinking is to build empathy, thus it was important to bring in
homeschooling parents to share their experiences with the participants. Understanding their
reasons for homeschooling as well as what type of support they might desire from the local
schools or conferences would be imperative. A participant, who was a former homeschooling
parent as well as a homeschooling co-op organizer, was asked to speak with homeschooling
parents in her area to see if they would be willing to meet with us. She was to ask the parents to
meet with us between 9:30-10:00, which should give the panel participants a few minutes to get
to know each other and for explanations of the design thinking process they would use prior to
meeting with the parents.
28
BUILDING BRIDGES
Goodie boxes
With the date set, it was time to put together the goodie boxes (Artifact 2) that would
serve two purposes. First, with the need to create a comfortable climate necessary for innovative
creativity and break the ice, it was determined that sending breakfast snacks and mugs with
coffee, tea, and hot cocoa supplies would be one way to help accomplish this goal. Secondly, the
plan was for the participants to use craft supplies for the prototyping portion of the project.
Items such as paper plates, pipe cleaners, wobbly eyes, cotton balls, popsicle sticks were
included in the box. Also included in the box was the event agenda without times which
included descriptions of the five steps of design thinking as well as general instructions. (Artifact
3) The boxes were sent out 5 days prior to the date of the event and participants were asked not
to open them until they were instructed to do so, the morning of the meeting.
Several days prior to the event, a video-conference invite was sent to all participants.
Then again another invitation was sent the night before, in case the previous one had been
misplaced.
Project Implementation
This section of the project report will be divided into two sections: Meeting 1 and Meeting 2.
Meeting #1
The event was to start at 9am. In order to be prepared, I logged into the video-conference
app 5 minutes early. Several participants came online at the designated time with a couple of
others experiencing initial difficulty signing on. By 9:05 all participants were online (Artifact
6). The meeting was started with prayer, each participant was asked to introduce themselves,
and then everyone was invited to open their goodie boxes. We took a couple minutes for
everyone to get their supplied hot drinks warmed and to start enjoying their breakfast goodies.
29
BUILDING BRIDGES
As the participants were enjoying their goodies, I began to explain the plan for the
meeting and what the steps were designed to produce. I was surprised when one of our
homeschooling moms joined us early at about 9:12 instead of the anticipated 9:30.
At this point I stepped away from the planned agenda (Artifact 4) and chose to give less
instruction to the participants due to the homeschooling mom’s early arrival. I was working
under the understanding that the mom’s joining us this morning would be needing to join, share
their stories and answer questions and then leave in order to return to their co-op meeting. But
once they came signed on, they stayed throughout the entire meeting.
At 9:15 I introduced homeschooling mom #1 and turned the time over to her to tell her
story. Mom #1 spoke for 8 minutes then asked if there were any questions. Several participants
asked clarifying questions.
Mom #2, another homeschooling mom joined us via telephone. She shared her story.
Again, questions were asked and she responded.
After Mom #2 shared with us, I thanked each mom for taking their time to share with us.
They left the meeting at 10:19 and we spent a couple of minutes reflecting on what we heard
from the moms. Each participant had the opportunity to share what they “heard” from the moms.
As the participants were sharing and starting to reframe the question of needs from the
previous mom’s perspectives, Mom #3 quietly joined us. I introduced Mom #3 to the group and
asked her if there was anything that she wanted to contribute to the discussion. She shared her
story as well as a heart wrenching observation made by her young son and then answered
questions
Afterwards we continued to discuss our impressions. At this point it became obvious to
me that we would not have time to complete the remaining steps in design thinking. I asked the
30
BUILDING BRIDGES
participants it they would be willing to meet a second time and they agreed to meet the same
time next week but for one hour.
This meeting closed by my thanking everyone who took the time to participate in this
dialogue. I let the participants know that I would send new video-conference invites and that
they would need to have the goodie boxes with the supplies handy for the next meeting. The
meeting closed with prayer.
Meeting #2
This meeting presented a number of challenges. We had only one hour to complete the
ideation, prototype and testing steps of the theory. Another challenge was technology. My
computer had recently undergone an operating system update and it appeared to be unstable with
the application I was using for the video-conferencing. My computer rebooted itself several
times making it difficult for me to stay connected to the conversations. This also affected the
recording of the second meeting. Only several small segments of the meeting were recorded.
Thankfully, it appeared that I was the only one experiencing the difficulty and conversations
continued while I struggled with my computer.
The second meeting started with prayer and then I asked each participant to give their
‘take away’ from the previous meeting. Mom #2 and Mom #3 joined us for this meeting and
were encouraged to share also.
At this meeting I encouraged the participants to log into the Batterii.com website I had set
up for them so they could see the bulleted notes from last week (Artifact 5) and add their own
ideas to the ideate board.
As the facilitator, I found it extremely difficult to bring the conversation around in an
attempt to focus on one or two strong ideas that could then be prototyped. My impression was
31
BUILDING BRIDGES
that there was a great passion for the topic and each of the participants felt the need to share
experiences, practical ideas, and philosophies.
At the close of the meeting, I asked if there was an interest to have at a later date another
meeting to continue the conversations. There was silence at first, then several agreed that this
topic was an important one that would benefit from further discussion and agreed that if a
dialogue was set up with flexible attendance, they would be interested. The meeting was closed
with prayer and good wishes.
Several days after the online design thinking experience, a SurveyMonkey online survey
was sent out with a request to the participants to respond as soon as possible.
This chapter has described the planning, detailed process of the implementation of the
online design thinking experience as well as the challenges faced both in time and technology.
The upcoming chapter will discuss the findings that occurred through the process of the design
thinking experience.
32
BUILDING BRIDGES
CHAPTER 4.
IMPLEMENTATION OUTCOMES
innovation experience using a design thinking process. This project was developed based on the
idea that design thinking could help gain a better understanding of this unique group of Adventist
parents will guide Adventist education toward a knowledge of better methods to support families
who desire to provide an Adventist education at home.
During the course of the project implementation, data were gathered in order to
accomplish the above goals. This chapter presents the approach and methodology, data gathered,
and in what ways the goals of this project were met.
Implementation Evaluation
This project was evaluated using both qualitative and quantitative methods of evaluation.
There were two distinctly different data collections taken during the course of this project. These
data would determine the success of the panel outcomes based on the goals of the project .
Approach and Methodology
McMillan and Schumacher (2010) maintain that qualitative studies seek to know how or
why behavior occurs and to understand the participants from their own perspective. Because
33
BUILDING BRIDGES
design thinking theory lends itself to qualitative methods due to its human based empathy, it was
used to evaluate the content and results of the project.
Data Collection
One method of data collection that enhanced validity was to record the online video-
conferencing panel discussion (Artifact 6). This allowed for rich recall of verbal and non-verbal
communication of both the participants of the panel and the homeschooling mom’s. Field notes
were taken from the recording of the event and were used as a means of determining whether the
panel produced practical ideas of collaboration.
Another form of data collection that was used to enhance validity are screenshots taken
from Batterii.com where the comments of the participants were shared as bullet points (see
Artifact 5). This allowed for “member checking” (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010, p. 331) and
were visible to all participants during the second meeting.
Lastly, data was collected via SurveyMonkey.com in the form of a survey to determine
whether the participants felt that the second goal of the project was met.
Implementation Outcome Findings
When the recordings of both panel meetings were reviewed in detail, along with the field
notes taken during the event, the Batterii.com bulleted notes, it was ascertained that there was a
pattern to the perspectives derived by the panel. Everything the homeschooling moms indicated
a desire for could be grouped into two main themes; 1) a relationship with not only the local
Adventist school, but also with the conference, and 2) better communication between
conference, schools and homeschooling families.
The chart below shows the summary of the findings, data sets used, and their relationship
to the two main themes (see Figure 2).
34
BUILDING BRIDGES
Theme Data Set Used Specific Finding
Build better relationships between the Video recording, Conferences could invite homeschooling parents to attend educational
local conferences, schools and the field notes trainings
homeschooling community
Video recording, Greater access to church textbooks, specifically the Bible curriculum
field notes
Video recording, Consider allowing teachers to work with the families to provide
field notes accountability for students and parents.
Video recording, Local church or school could host a homeschooling co-op.
field notes
Video recording, Students from the local school and the homeschool community
field notes should have opportunities for socialization and spiritual growth and
interaction
Better communication between the Video recording, Learn the “language” of the homeschooling community in order to
conference, schools and the homeschooling field notes better communicate.
community.
Video recording, Be more intentional about reaching out to homeschooling parents to
field notes see what the school can do to facilitate what the parent is doing at
home.
Table 2. Themes derived from findings
Based on these findings, it appears that the Adventist homeschooling community
represented by the moms on the panel, would desire a better working relationship with Adventist
education. This would be enhanced with communication that is inclusive and respectful of their
role as the primary teacher.
35
BUILDING BRIDGES
In the course of the conversation, they gave several specific approaches toward building
this bridge of collaboration such as making available the new Bible program, inclusion to
conference teacher trainings, and enabling a co-operative on the school campus.
Other comments made during the empathy step suggested that Adventist education
consider the following:
• The need for more individualized instruction.
• Recognize the need for a more co-operative relationship between parents of the students
and school personnel.
• Re-evaluate the methodology and philosophy of our current mode of education.
This chapter has reported on the methodology used, the data collected and the findings
that were derived from the panel participants during the implementation of the design thinking
experience. The ensuing chapter will review the findings from the evaluation of the overall
project.
36
BUILDING BRIDGES
CHAPTER 5.
PROJECT EVALUATION
This chapter presents the data gathered specifically to evaluate the project, their analysis,
and the overall effectiveness in meeting the goals of this project.
Project Evaluation Approach

To evaluate whether design thinking and virtual teams was found to be a useful tool in
building collaboration, data were gathered from the participants in the forms of a survey from
SurveyMonkey, field notes were taken during the event, and the reflection on my experience
during the process. The survey items focused around the areas of 1) planning/preparation of the
event, 2) use of digital technology, 3) length of the event, 4) meeting the goals of the innovation
project.
Approach and Methodology
McMillan and Schumacher (2010) assert that a quantitative approach seeks to understand
the relationships and the causes of measurable outcomes. In order to determine the effectiveness
of the panel from the participants perspective in a measurable outcome, a survey with nine items
was developed using SurveyMonkey.com.
Seven of the responses were based on a five point Likert scale of: strongly agree, agree,
neither agree or disagree, disagree, and strongly disagree. Two questions were left open for
participant comments.
Data Collection
The data were collected via the website and were held as confidential and used as
artifacts to support the completion of the project. Four (n = 4) of the seven participants
responded to the survey.
37
BUILDING BRIDGES
Project Evaluation Results

Because this event was the first of its kind to use online virtual communication as the sole
method rather than face-to-face, it was important to determine whether the panel found the
technology easy to use or cumbersome. The
statement “the zoom technology was easy to use”
was answered with 100% of the responses either
agreeing or strongly agreeing (see Figure 3).
Figure 3. Use of Technology
To determine whether the participants felt the facilitator was prepared for the event, two
questions were asked. The first question, “was
the event well organized” received 75% strongly
agreeing and 25% agreeing with that statement
(see Figure 4).
The second question was “can you think
of ways that the facilitator might have been better Figure 4. Event Organization
prepared for this event” was an open-ended question asking for suggestions. The answers to this
question seem to indicate that although the participants felt I was prepared, there was also a
desire for more directed guidance. The other suggestion made was that there could have been
better understanding of schools that are currently collaborating with success.
When asked “if I were to participate again, I would appreciate…” the participants
expressed a desire for more long term planning to take place as well as clearer understanding of
the agenda.
38
BUILDING BRIDGES
Participants were asked to respond to the statement, “I gained new insights about
homeschooling in the Adventist church”. 75% of
the responders agreed and 25% neither agreed or
disagreed with the statement (see Figure 5). This
was important because one of the goals of this
panel was for the participants to better understand
the homeschooling parents in the Adventist church. Figure 5. Gained New Insights
There was concern whether the length of time would be long enough to accomplish the
goals while at the same time concerned that the participants would be willing to invest their time.
Because of this concern, the question was asked whether
“the event length was” much too long, too long, about
right, too short, or much too short. The answers were
scattered on this question. 50% of the respondents felt
that the event was too short, 25% said it was about right,
Figure 6. Length of Time
and 25% felt it was too long (see Figure 6).
The follow-up statement “the
experience of meeting with the Homeschool
Collaboration panel was worth the investment
of my time” indicated that 25% strongly
agreed and 75% of the respondents agreed that
the event was worth the investment of their

Figure 7. Worth Their Time
time (see Figure 7).
39
BUILDING BRIDGES
In attempting to determine if the participants felt
that the first goal of using an online experience of
design thinking to explore what Adventist
education can do to create a bridge of
collaboration had been met, the participants were

Figure 8. Made Progress Toward Goals
asked if they “believed that we made any progress” in our goal to find ways to bridge the
homeschool-school gap. 100% of the participants felt that we made progress on this goal (see
Figure 8).
Because this was the first instance for using the design thinking format with virtual
stakeholders in order to build a bridge of
collaboration, it was important to determine
whether the participants would recommend
this type of event to others. Their response
indicated that 100% agreed or strongly

Figure 9. Recommend Event to Others
agreed they would recommend this event to others
(see Figure 9).
As this was the first online design thinking experience of its kind, it was important to
determine how the participants viewed the success of the event. The findings indicate there was a
positive response to the idea of an online experience and a willingness to participate again in the
future. But more importantly the participants felt the goal had been met to a degree. This was
because they also recognized the need for continued online conversations to take place.
While this chapter reviewed the findings from the various data sets about the overall
success of the second goal of the project which was to evaluate whether an online design
40
BUILDING BRIDGES
thinking experience could be useful in building a bridge of collaboration. The final chapter will
review the context of the problem, the final conclusions derived from the findings, and most
importantly, what has been learned toward building bridges of collaboration between Adventist
education and Adventist homeschooling. Lastly, I will conclude with suggestions for future study
and my reflections on this experience.
41
BUILDING BRIDGES
CHAPTER 6.
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Education has played an important role in the history of civilization since creation. The
first examples were of those who educated in the home, making homeschooling the longest
standing method of education. Over the course of history, schools were added to make up for the
deficiency of parents who neglected this responsibility. From its earliest inception, the U.S.
made education of the youth an important part of the developing country. Eventually, with the
industrial age came the first compulsory education laws (1852) in an effort to protect children
workers and indoctrinate the many immigrants coming into the US in search of work.
The Adventist church, in its infancy at the time, began to take notice of the compulsory
school movement. In order to meet the needs of those parents who felt inadequate to educate
their children, families joined together and started schools in homes of church members to meet
the needs of educating their children in the way of the Lord. While most parents sent their
children to church schools, some still chose to home educate.
In the last twenty years new legislations have allowed for homeschooling to be legalized
and homeschooling has enjoyed a renewed acceptance in the U.S.. Public districts have
recognized that a key to success was to embrace the new relationship between the school and the
parents and by doing this, respecting the role of parents as the primary teachers of their children.
From my experience Adventist homeschooling parents would welcome an open
partnership with Adventist education, creating a bridge with Adventist homeschooling as a part
of the educational ministry of the church. The question becomes, how do we create this bridge?
Recognizing that Adventist education has never attempted this type of collaboration, it
was my opinion that a creative approach would be necessary. “Creativity[,] …the heart of
42
BUILDING BRIDGES
innovation” (Kelley & Kelley, 2013, p. 16) is the lifeblood of companies that want to flourish in
today’s changing marketplace.
Adventist education has experienced a changed marketplace with today’s Adventist
parents having so many options for the education of their children such as church school, public
school, and homeschool. This has caused Adventist education to question how to maintain their
schools. The NAD has recognized that there is need for “significant innovation…to develop
avenues of interaction with our children and youth” and to find ways to “provide support and
resources to parents who home school their children” (North American Division, 2016, pp. 28,
32).
With the need for creative innovation, this project leaned on design thinking as a possible
framework because of its use of empathy to understand the unspoken needs of the end user, as
well as its ability to connect the “creative design approach to traditional business thinking”
(Tschimmel, 2012, p. 2). It was the project’s goal to implement the five steps of design thinking
with a representative panel of stakeholders in Adventist education and homeschooling in order to
find answers to how we can build a bridge.
The participants chosen for this panel included an Adventist conference superintendent, a
college professor in the education department at an Adventist college/university, a former
Adventist homeschooling mom who was also a homeschooling co-op organizer, an Adventist
elementary teacher/principal, an Adventist academy teacher, and an Adventist pastor. A trio of
homeschooling moms were invited to share their homeschooling stories and to voice their
perspectives on ways to collaborate.
Because of the geographical disparity of the panel members and the lack of funds for
travel, it was determined that using virtual collaboration would also be necessary. This was a
43
BUILDING BRIDGES
new approach to completing this project for this program and was innovative in itself. I was
treading new ground. It would be challenging to provide the comfort necessary for the
participants to find the commonalities necessary to build team trust as a virtual collaboration
team.
We met early two mornings via video-conferencing technology. Although I had provided
a handout with explanations of the five step design theory as a guide, we never actually
progressed beyond ideation (step 2). The homeschooling moms shared their concerns with
Adventist education as well as their desire to be better connected.
Conclusions
In evaluating whether the goals of this project were met, there were mixed results. The
purpose of this project was to find ways of helping Adventist education work together with
homeschoolers by facilitating a panel of Adventist educators in an online innovation experience
using a design thinking process. This project was intended to accomplish the following goals:
The first goal of using an online experience of design thinking to explore what Adventist
education can do to create a bridge of collaboration was looking for outcomes that emerged from
the process of the innovation project. The findings indicate there were two main themes that the
homeschooling parents desire. They want to build better communication platforms between
Adventist education and Adventist homeschooling families as well as develop relationships that
44
BUILDING BRIDGES
would allow for a partnership to develop. There were seven findings that fit either of these two
main themes.
In evaluating whether the second goal of using an online design thinking experience
could be useful in building a bridge of collaboration was met, I am unable to confirm definitively
that the goal was met because the participants did not actually work through all five steps of
design thinking as planned. Several items may have played a key role. First, our prolonged stay
at the first step of empathy took up the time necessary to complete the rest of the steps. Had this
been a traditional face-to-face meeting, the ability to mingle more might have changed the
dynamic and allowed for us to move beyond the empathy step. Second, despite my attempt to
mitigate the potential difficulties with virtual teams, had an experienced facilitator led the
meeting, they might have had different results. Yet, in spite of these challenges, the empathy
step produced several useful outcomes to meet the first goal of the project, which was to explore
ways that Adventist education can build bridges of collaboration with Adventist homeschooling,
and the findings from the survey indicated that the participants felt that they gained a better
understanding of the perspectives of the homeschooling parents which was a direct result of step
one of design thinking.
The conclusions drawn from this project were 1) there is an interest among the various
stakeholders in establishing bridges between Adventist education and Adventist homeschoolers,
2) Design thinking has the potential to be a useful tool for exploration of new and innovative
approaches toward collaboration between Adventist education and Adventist homeschooling
families especially when led by an experienced facilitator, and 3) the use of virtual collaboration
has the capacity to allow participants to add to the knowledge base regardless of their geography
45
BUILDING BRIDGES
but it is important to take care to allow for interpersonal relationships to build amongst the team
that would allow for creative innovation.
These findings could indicate advantageous if Adventist education considered taking a
leadership role amongst private schools and develop a system wide plan for collaboration as
suggested by Lines (1986) and Yeager(1999).
Recommendations for the Future
Based on the findings and data acquired during this project the following
recommendations are made:
1. While searching the literature for this innovation project, I found virtually no research
studies or dissertations specifically on Adventist homeschooling. This is an area of
Adventist education that must be studied and understood if Adventist education is to
meet the challenges of the future.
2. The findings suggest Adventist homeschooling families desire opening the dialogue
with Adventist education from the NAD down to the local school in order to build
better communication and relationships. Finding pathways to collaborate with
Adventist homeschooling families could possibly build bridges that will sustain the
future of Adventist education.
3. The findings indicate communication between the local school and their Adventist
homeschooling community needs to be increased, especially in those schools that are
willing to increase collaboration. In antidotal communication during the course of
this project, it was discovered that schools have not utilized communication as a PR
method to reach the homeschooling families in their district.
46
BUILDING BRIDGES
4. Recommendations that would improve the effectiveness of future online design
thinking experiences;
a. Schedule several online meet-and-greets to allow participants to get to know
each other prior to the actual experience. Be sure to include all participants.
b. Include a bio sheet that includes each person’s background as well as their
current position.
c. Send out the participants guide prior to the meeting including times for each
step so they can be aware of the plan for the experience..
d. Allow ample time to allow each step (I felt that two hours was not enough
time) and keep participants focused on the current step.
e. Know the limitations of your online video software plans. How long can you
meet under the current plan agreement?
Reflection
The subject of this project, building bridges of collaboration between Adventist education
and Adventist homeschooling, is near and dear to my heart. From the very beginning of my
program I knew I needed to find a creative way to flush out how to build these bridges and was
excited when I discovered design thinking. This process allows the design process to develop
around those to whom it is intended. So many times we try to fix the problem without including
those most effected.
On a more personal note, I learned a lot about myself during this project. I am thankful
that when God calls us, He also equips us. He is the Master Designer, the one who has put a
spark of creativity in each person. No two sparks of creativity are exactly the same, but they are
perfect because they came from God. It is my prayer that I will use the spark given to me to
47
BUILDING BRIDGES
fulfill His calling to help build bridges of collaboration in Adventist education and Adventist
homeschooling.
48
BUILDING BRIDGES
References Cited
Ale Ebrahim, N., Ahmed, S., & Taha, S. (2009). Virtual teams: A literature review. Australian
Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 3(3), 2653-2669.
Amabile, T. M., & Kramer, S. J. (2011). Inner work life: Understanding the subtext of business
performance. In J. S. Osland & M. E. Turner (Eds.), The organizational behavior reader
(Ninth ed., pp. 159-169). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Angelis, K. L. (2008). Home schooling: Are partnerships possible? (Doctor of Philosophy),

University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.
Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., & Sambrook, S. (2009). Towards a multidisciplinary definition of
innovation. Management Decision, 47(8), 1323-1339.
Battarbee, K., Suri, J. F., & Howard, S. G. (2014). Empathy on the edge. Retrieved from
https://www.ideo.com/images/uploads/news/pdfs/Empathy_on_the_Edge.pdf
Brand, J. L. (2017). Creativity: Image of God? Andrews University, Retrieved from

https://learninghub.andrews.edu/course/view.php?id=37466
Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and
inspires innovation [Kindle edition] (1st ed.). New York: Harper Business.
Brown, T. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.ideou.com/pages/design-thinking
Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2007). Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation
Review(Winter 2010).
Burton, W. A. (1987). A history of the mission of Seventh-day Adventist education 1844-1900.

(Doctor of Philosophy), Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Caniels, M. C. J., & Rietzschel, E. F. (2015). Organizing creativity: Creativity and innovation
under constraints. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24(2), 184-196.
Catmull, E., & Wallace, A. (2014). Creativity inc.: Overcoming the unseen forces that stand in
the way of true inspiration [Kindle edition]. New York: Random House.
Chamakiotis, P., Dekonick, E. a., & Panteli, N. (2013). Factors influencing creativity in virtual
design teams: An interplay between technology, teams and individuals. Creativity and
Innovation Management, 22(3), 265-279.
Creativity (2018). Retrieved from

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=creativity+definition&ie=UTF-
8&oe=UTF-8
DeVost, R. (2010). What Adventist parents consider important in choosing schools for their
children.
49
BUILDING BRIDGES
Gaither, M. (2009). Home schooling goes mainstream. Education Next, 9(1), p.10-18. Retrieved
from http://educationnext.org/home-schooling-goes-mainstream/
Gibson, C. (2011). Collaborating with virtuality: Leveraging enabling conditions to improve

team effectivness. In J. S. Osland & M. E. Turner (Eds.), The organizational behavior
reader (Ninth ed., pp. 298-309). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Gibson, C. B., & Gibb, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of
geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity
on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(2006), 451-495.
Govindarajan, V. (2016). The three box solution: A strategy for leading innovation. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business Review Press.
Gressgard, L. J. (2010). Virtual team collaboration and innovation in organizations. Team

Performance Management, 17(1/2, 2010), 102-119.
Hoegl, M., & Proserpio, L. (2004). Team member proximity and teamwork in innovative
projects. Research Policy, 33(2004), 1153-1165.
IDEO. (2018). Brainstorming [Web page]. Retrieved from

https://www.ideou.com/pages/brainstorming
Kelley, D., & Kelley, T. (2013). Creative confidence: Unleashing the creative potential within us
all (pp. xv, 304 pages). doi:Nook
Kirkman, B. L., & Hartog, D. N. D. (2011). Performance management in global teams. In J. S.

Osland & M. E. Turner (Eds.), The organizational behavior reader (Ninth ed., pp. 616-
636). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Klicka, C. (2002). Homeschooling: The right choice. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman
Publishers.
LaBorde, I. C. (2007). Reasons Seventh-Day Adventist parents gave for not sending their
children to Seventh-Day Adventist elementary and secondary Schools. (Doctor of
Philosophy Dissertation), Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations
Lines, P. (1986). Homeschooling instruction: An overview. Retrieved from Policy and Planning
Center Appalachia Educational Laboratory:
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED296453.pdf
Lines, P. (2000). When home schoolers go to school: A partnership between families and
schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 75(1&2), 159-186.
Majchrzak, A., Rice, R. E., King, N., Mahotra, A., & Ba, S. (2000). Computer-mediated inter-
organizational knowledge-sharing: Insights from a virtual team innovating using a
collaborative tool. Information Resources Management Journal, 13(1), 44-53.
50
BUILDING BRIDGES
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry

(Seventh ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
McMullen, J. G. (2002). Behind closed doors: Should states regulate homeschooling? South
Carolina Law Review, 54, 75.
Merriam-Webster. (Ed.) (2018a) In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved from

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creativity
Merriam-Webster. (2018b). Innovation. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/innovation
North American Division. (2016). NAD education taskforce final report. Retrieved from
http://adventisteducation.org/downloads/pdf/Final%20Draft%20NADET%202016.pdf
Perrin, J. W. (1896). The history of compulsory education in New England. (Doctor of

Philosphy), University of Chicago. Retrieved from
https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?
Raynor, J. (2017). Called to create: A biblical invitation to create, innovate, and risk.[Kindle
edition]. (pp. 242).
Romanowski, M. (2001). Home school and the public school: Rethinking the relationship.
Streamlined Seminar, 19 (3)(Spring 2001). Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED452594.pdf
Schulz, K.-P., Geithner, S., Woelfel, C., & Krzyinski, J. (2015). Toolkit-based modelling and
serious play as means to foster creativity in innovation process. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 24(2), 323-340.
Senge, P. M., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2012).
Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who
cares about education [Kindle version]. (pp. 584). Retrieved from amazon.com
Sutton, R. (2011). Weird ideas that work: Building companies where innovation is a way of life.
In J. S. Osland & M. E. Turner (Eds.), The organizational behavior reader (Ninth ed., pp.
347-357). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Thayer, J., & Coria-Navia, A. (2016). Strengthing Adventist education report. Retrieved from
http://circle.adventist.org/browse/resource.phtml?leaf=27873
Tonhauser, P. (2016). Design thinking workshop: The 12 indispensable elements for a design
thinking workshop [Kindle edition]: Pauline Tonhauser.
Tschimmel, K. (2012). Design thinking as an effective toolkit for innovation. Paper presented at
the Proceedings of the XXIII ISPIM Conference: Action for Innovation: Innovating from
Experience, Barcelona.
51
BUILDING BRIDGES
White, E. (1890). Patriarch and prophets [Digital edition] (pp. 805). Retrieved from EGW
Writings App
White, E. (1898). The desire of ages [Digital edition]. (Digital ed.) (pp. 832). Retrieved from
EGW Writings App
White, E. (1903). Education.[Digital edition]. (pp. 324). Retrieved from EGW Writings App
White, E. (1923). Fundamentals of Christion education [Digital edition] (pp. 576). Retrieved
from EGW Writings App
White, E. (1943). Counsels to parents, teachers, and students (pp. 575). Retrieved from EGW
Writings App
White, E. (1946). Evangelism [Digital edition]. Washington,: D. C.
White, E. (1954). Child Guidance [Digital edition] (pp. 616). Retrieved from EGW Writings
App
Wilson, L. O. (2018). Definitions of creativity. Retrieved from

https://thesecondprinciple.com/creativity/creativity-essentials/on-definitions-of-
creativity/
Yaffe, D. (2015). Homeschool connections: District leaders reach out to unenrolled students to
expand programs and maximize state funding. District Administration, 51, 44+.
Yayici, E. (2016). Design thinking methodology book [Kindle edition]
Yeager, E. T. (1999). A study of cooperation between home schools and public and private
schools, K-12. Texas A&M University-Commerce.
Zaltman, G., & Coulter, R. H. (1995). Seeing the voice of the customer: Metaphor-based
advertising research. JOurnal of Advertising Research, 35(4 July/August), 35-51.
52
BUILDING BRIDGES
APPENDIX A
Figures
1. Expanded stages of design thinking ................................................................................... 3
2. Implementation goals met .................................................................................................. 3
3. Use of Technology ........................................................................................................... 36
4. Event Organization .......................................................................................................... 36
5. Gained New Insights ........................................................................................................ 37
6. Length of Time ................................................................................................................ 37
7. Worth Their Time ............................................................................................................ 37
8. Made Progress Toward Goals .......................................................................................... 38
9. Recommend to Others...................................................................................................... 38
53
BUILDING BRIDGES
APPENDIX B
Artifacts
1. Letters to superintendents and their responses:
54
BUILDING BRIDGES
55
BUILDING BRIDGES
56
BUILDING BRIDGES
57
BUILDING BRIDGES
58
BUILDING BRIDGES
59
BUILDING BRIDGES
60
BUILDING BRIDGES
61
BUILDING BRIDGES
2. Picture of goodie box sent to participants.
62
BUILDING BRIDGES
3. Handout sent to participants.
63
BUILDING BRIDGES
64
BUILDING BRIDGES
65
BUILDING BRIDGES
66
BUILDING BRIDGES
4. Homeschool Collaboration Facilitator Guide
67
BUILDING BRIDGES
68
BUILDING BRIDGES
69
BUILDING BRIDGES
70
BUILDING BRIDGES
5. Notes shared during the panel using the batterii.com website
71
BUILDING BRIDGES
6. Recording of both Zoom events (M4a and M4u) and screenshot.
72
BUILDING BRIDGES
APPENDIX C
SurveyMonkey Comments
1. “Can you think of ways that the facilitator might have been better prepared for this
event?” The following are the responses to this question:
“I think the facilitator was well prepared”
“I think it was well prepared”
“It was difficult to gage the time we would need, but this is also the area that could use the
most growth. While the first session was efficient and productive, the second session seemed
to lack focus”
“Dawn did an excellent job organizing the event and facilitating the conversation. Perhaps
guiding the conversations to actionable items or next steps would have been good.
Additionally, having at least sketched models that are currently working would have been
helpful”.
2. “If I were to participate again, I would appreciate…”
The responses were as follows:
“More targeted conversations on the solutions and clear next steps.”
“A published agenda and some closure.”
“I liked the bullet points done, so bullet points made again would be appreciated.”
“Maybe one would need to ask the question about the curriculum the schools use. I am
not sure if they are Adventist or from a different source. This might aid in the
homeschoolers being more willing to collaborate with the school.”
73

Building Bridges Project 1

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Building Bridges Project 1

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Running Head: BUILDING BRIDGES

Using an Online Innovation Process to

Build Bridges Between Adventist Education

and Adventist Homeschooling

An Innovation Project Report

Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

APPROVAL BY THE COMMITTEE:

Second Reader: Jay Brand, PhD Date approved

education work together with homeschoolers by facilitating a panel of Adventist educators in an

collaboration technology as a medium of communication. Two sets of data were collected

Keywords: [homeschooling, home schooling, Adventist, Seventh-day Adventist, SDA,

collaboration, creativity, online teams, virtual teams, design thinking]

and helping me to stay focused!

Brice – Always remember, it’s never too late! I love you!

attend because of papers. I love you.

enduring love and patience.

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... V

LIST OF TERMS ............................................................................................................................ 1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 2

Innovation Project Introduction ...................................................................................................... 2

Purpose and Goals........................................................................................................................... 6

Evaluation Methods ........................................................................................................................ 7

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE ........................................................................................................ 8

Studies Relating to Adventists ................................................................................................. 9

Virtual Collaboration .................................................................................................................... 23

Project Implementation ................................................................................................................. 26

Participants and Scheduling .............................................................................................. 27

Implementation Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 33

Approach and Methodology ......................................................................................................... 33

Data Collection ............................................................................................................................. 34

Implementation Outcome Findings............................................................................................... 34

CHAPTER 5. PROJECT EVALUATION ................................................................................. 37

Project Evaluation Approach ........................................................................................................ 37

Approach and Methodology ......................................................................................................... 37

Data Collection ............................................................................................................................. 37

Project Evaluation Results ............................................................................................................ 38

CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................... 42

Recommendations for the Future .................................................................................................. 46

REFERENCES CITED ................................................................................................................. 45

Conference, Union, and North American Division of Seventh-day Adventist.

Innovation Project Introduction

such as Eli (White, 1903, p. 45.1; 1923, p. 96.3).

coming into the U.S. in search of work.

Homeschooling’s Relationship with Public Schools

part-time enrollments with optional offerings.

honoring the parents as the primary instructor of their children” (p.48).

offerings at home (Angelis, 2008; Yeager, 1999).

Homeschooling’s Relationship with Adventist Education

Historically, Adventist education has focused on supporting and sustaining brick-and-

North American Division (NAD) Education Taskforce (NADET) recognized that

In recent years, innovation has become vital to organizations needing to keep a

participants. From my experience in both classroom teaching, homeschooling, and discussions

with other homeschooling parents Adventist homeschooling parents would welcome a

Adventist education and Adventist homeschooling families.

Statement of the Problem

Purpose and Goals

together with homeschoolers by facilitating a panel of Adventist educators in an online

innovation experience using a design thinking process.

This project was intended to accomplish the following goals:

1. To use an online experience of design thinking to explore what Adventist

education can do to create a bridge of collaboration.

2. To evaluate whether an online design thinking experience could be useful in