Design Thinking for Community Challenges: Innovative Practices in Upper Primary Social Studies and Integrated Learning for Regional Revitalisation

Suzuki Kenta  [Japan]

Abstract

Faced with Japan's widespread challenges of declining regional populations, ageing communities, and diminishing vitality, ‘Regional Revitalisation’ has become a national strategy. How can education, particularly primary education, contribute to this effort? Traditional social studies and integrated learning often remain confined to reviewing community history or observing current conditions. Students are positioned as “learners” rather than ‘agents of change,’ making it difficult to foster a profound sense of belonging and agency. This study proposes and implements the ‘Community Challenges Design Thinking’ project, aiming to transform primary school pupils into ‘junior designers’ addressing local issues. Through deep collaboration with municipal ‘Regional Revitalisation Departments’, the project identifies authentic ‘child-friendly community issue lists’—such as vacant property revitalisation, traditional craft preservation, and underutilised tourist routes. Student teams employed a modified five-stage design thinking process—empathy, define, ideate, prototype, test—for a semester-long inquiry. They conducted in-depth community interviews, mapped spaces, analysed data, and ultimately proposed imaginative yet feasible solutions (e.g., ‘Vacant House Exploration Maps,’ ‘Traditional Craft AR Experience Cards,’ ‘Old Street Scent Treasure Hunt Games’). These were formally presented to mayors and citizens. Through action research, this paper demonstrates that the model significantly stimulates students' affection and sense of responsibility towards their hometown, effectively cultivating critical thinking, creativity, communication skills, and problem-solving abilities. Students' learning outcomes directly contribute to discussions and practices in regional revitalisation, achieving mutual empowerment between ‘learning’ and ‘community contribution.’ This provides a replicable and scalable innovative pathway for cultivating ‘talent who cherish their local communities’ in Japan.

Keywords: Regional Revitalisation; Design Thinking; Social Participation; Civic Education; Collaborative Regional Learning; Proposal Development; Project-Based Learning

Introduction

Research Context: Education's New Mission Under National Regional Revitalisation Policy

Japan's declining birth rates and ageing population pose particularly acute challenges for regional cities, leading to commercial decline, public facility closures, and diminished community vitality. Since the Abe administration, ‘regional revitalisation’ has been elevated to a national strategic priority. However, the policy's success ultimately hinges on ‘people’ – specifically whether the younger generation is willing and able to remain in or return to their hometowns to engage in community revitalisation. School education, particularly social studies and integrated learning periods, bears the crucial mission of cultivating adolescents' ‘love for their region’  and ‘problem-solving capabilities’. Yet the current reality is that related curricula often become perfunctory: social studies emphasises knowledge transmission, while integrated learning frequently devolves into superficial experiential activities. The relationship between students and their communities remains distant and observational; they seldom feel empowered to make tangible contributions to their hometowns. This sense of powerlessness is precisely one of the psychological factors driving youth outflow.

Theoretical Framework: Design Thinking and Socially Engaged Learning The core methodology of this teaching plan is ‘Design Thinking’ (DT). DT is a human-centred, systematic approach to solving complex problems through creative solutions. Its classic five-stage model – Empathise, Define, Ideate, Prototype, Test – provides students with a clear, iterative problem-solving process that emphasises hands-on creation. Introducing DT into primary education is not merely about teaching a method, but cultivating a “creator mindset” – the belief that problems can be redefined, and solutions can be created and tested through collaboration and rapid prototyping. Simultaneously, the project is inherently “socially engaged learning”. It breaks down barriers between schools and communities, enabling pupils to participate as “collaborators” and “contributors” in genuine community development processes. The learning objectives extend beyond individual knowledge growth to produce “public outcomes” that positively impact the community. This approach carries profound authenticity and a sense of purpose.

Research Objectives and Innovation

This study aims to develop and validate the effectiveness of the “Design Thinking for Community Challenges” programme. Specific objectives include:

1. Mechanism Establishment: Establishing a regularised mechanism for schools and local governments to collaboratively screen and support student community projects.

2. Competency Development: Assessing the role of the DT process in enhancing primary pupils' complex problem-solving abilities, creativity, and proposal-making skills.

3. Emotional Engagement and Identity Formation: Investigating whether addressing authentic community issues can significantly strengthen pupils' sense of local belonging and civic efficacy.

The project's innovation lies in: firstly, the authenticity of its subject matter, with problems directly sourced from local government worklists, ensuring seriousness and social relevance; secondly, the advancement of its methodology, systematically introducing cutting-edge design thinking into primary social studies; thirdly, the public nature of its outcomes, where learning results are formally presented to the community as proposals that may be adopted, enabling pupils to experience the respect of being ‘taken seriously’.

‘Design Thinking for Community Challenges’ Innovative Project Design

Overall Framework and School-Community Collaboration Mechanism

·Implementation Year: Sixth Year of Primary School (or Year 7 in integrated primary-secondary schools).

·Duration: One term (approximately 15-20 weeks).

School-Community Collaboration Mechanism: At term commencement, schools convene joint meetings with municipal departments such as the ‘Regional Revitalisation Division’ and the ‘Community Development Council’. Government bodies provide a curated list of ‘community challenges viewed through children's eyes’ suitable for student engagement. Listed issues must be specific, well-defined, and amenable to improvement through creative solutions (not requiring substantial funding). Concurrently, the government designates a ‘Community Liaison Officer’ responsible for providing data support to students, arranging interview contacts, and participating in the final assessment.

Core Question and Learning Objectives

·Core Driving Question: ‘How can we utilise our observations, creativity, and actions to propose a “small-scale improvement plan” for our town that enhances happiness and vitality for more people?’

·Learning Outcomes:

Knowledge/Understanding: Grasp the context, causes, and diverse perspectives of stakeholders regarding the selected community issue.

Process/Skills: Master the fundamental methodology of the five-stage design thinking process; conduct basic user interviews, field observations, and data collection; brainstorm and sketch creative ideas; produce low-cost prototypes and test them; deliver clear and compelling public presentations and proposals.

Affective/Attitudes/Values: Cultivate deep observational skills and empathy towards the community; build confidence and a sense of responsibility that ‘I can contribute to the community’; experience the joy of collaborative creation and social participation; deepen love for one's hometown.

Detailed Teaching Plan for the Five Stages of Design Thinking

Stage One: Empathy – Entering the Scene, Listening to Stories (Weeks 1-4)

·Activity 1: Issue Launch and Team Formation. Distribute the ‘Children's Community Issue Catalogue’. Students form 3-4 person project teams based on interest, selecting an issue (e.g., ‘How can we make vacant shops on the old street appear less desolate?’; ‘How can we help visitors discover our Huachuan specialty “firefly squid” cuisine?’).

·Activity 2: ‘Community Detective’ Field Visits. Groups conduct multiple site visits using the ‘Empathy Map’ tool (recording observations, thoughts, and feelings). They observe not only buildings and streets but also people: Who is present? What are they doing? What are their expressions? Do they appear content or troubled?

·Activity 3: Listening to Key Informants. With support from teachers and community liaisons, schedule and conduct interviews with relevant individuals. For instance, regarding vacant properties: interview owners (Why is it empty?), neighbouring businesses (What impact does it have?), and passing children (Do they find it scary or interesting?). Learn to employ ‘Why?’ follow-up questioning to uncover underlying needs and emotions.

Phase Two: Definition – Focusing on Core Challenges (Weeks 5-6)

·Activity 1: Story Sharing and Insight Extraction. Each group shares interview and observation narratives. Redefine problems using the phrasing: ‘We believe (users) need a way to (need), because ______ (deep insight).’ For example, rephrase ‘too many empty houses’ as ‘local children lack a safe, indoor public space to freely explore and create secret hideouts’ or ‘passers-by wish empty windows displayed whimsical content rather than gaping black holes’.

· Activity 2: Drafting ‘How Might We...’ statements. Transform insights into positive, solution-oriented questions: ‘How Might We turn the windows of Old Street's vacant properties into canvases for community storytelling?’ or ‘How Might We enable visitors to discover our town's hidden culinary gems like a treasure hunt?’

Phase Three: Ideation – Wild Brainstorming (Weeks 7-8)

·Activity 1: Rules and Warm-up.

Establish the golden rules for ideation: prioritise quantity, ban criticism, welcome wild imagination, encourage combination and refinement.   Conduct a rapid association warm-up game.

·Activity 2: Individual Sketch Frenzy.

Around the HMW question, each participant creates 5-minute rapid sketches, sketching at least 10 ideas—no matter how absurd.

·Activity 3: Group Sharing & Concept Clustering. Share all sketches within teams, grouping similar ideas. Using the ‘dot voting method’, each participant selects their top three most interesting, feasible, and boldest directions for in-depth discussion. Develop these into more detailed concept sketches.

Stage Four: Prototyping – Making Ideas Tangible (Weeks 9-12)

·Activity 1: Selection and Production. Groups select one most promising concept to create a ‘low-fidelity prototype’. The prototype must be tangible and experiential, not a polished proposal document.

For ‘Story Windows’: Produce a 1:10 scale shopfront model. Use stickers, paintings, and miniature LED lights to demonstrate how window content evolves over time/seasons.

For ‘Gastronomic Treasure Hunt’: Design physical ‘treasure hunt cards’ and a map. Cards may feature QR codes linking to descriptions or include stamping areas.

For ‘Secret Hideout’: Construct an internal layout model using cardboard boxes and building blocks.

·Activity 2: On-Campus Testing and Iteration. Present prototypes to fellow students and staff across the campus, simulating usage scenarios to gather feedback ("What's unclear? ‘, ’What's engaging?‘, ’Where could it be improved?"). Rapidly refine the prototype based on feedback, even adjusting the core concept.

Phase Five: Testing – Returning to the Community, Formal Proposal (Weeks 13-15)

·Activity 1: Community Field Testing. Take the refined prototype back to the original context. Present and test it with previously interviewed residents, shopkeepers, or even property owners. This provides the most authentic validation. ‘What do you think of this idea? If implemented, would you be willing to participate or use it?’

·Activity 2: Prepare final proposal materials.

Compile the full narrative of the process (discoveries and defined problems from the empathy phase, multiple conceptual possibilities, prototype iteration journey), the final solution description, and a simple feasibility analysis (who needs to collaborate? Rough steps? Estimated costs minimal or solvable via crowdfunding/volunteers).

·Activity 3: ‘Our Town Development Proposal Session’. Host a formal presentation in a municipal government meeting room or community centre. Invite the mayor, relevant officials, community representatives, and media. Students present in formal attire using prepared slides, videos, and physical prototypes. They field questions from judges and attendees. This constitutes a serious ‘civic practice’.

Teaching Practice and Effectiveness Analysis

Research Implementation

This study was conducted with Year 6 pupils (two classes, 60 students) at a combined primary-secondary school in Namerikawa City, Toyama Prefecture – a municipal district facing typical population decline challenges. Qualitative case study methodology was employed, with data comprising: group design process records (empathy maps, insight statements, sketches, iterative prototype versions), proposal presentation recordings, student reflective essays, interviews with community stakeholders and government officials, and local media coverage.

Core Findings

1. A shift in perspective from ‘indifference’ to ‘proactive discovery’. Prior to the project launch, pupils exhibited widespread indifference towards community issues. Following empathy-building exercises, they transformed into keen observers: ‘I noticed the rusted letterbox at that empty house, yet the numberplate remains pristine—could someone still visit occasionally?’ " In the afternoon sunlight on the old street, the shadows stretch beautifully long, yet hardly anyone strolls here.‘ They began viewing their town through the eyes of “designers” and ’stewards."

2. A leap in creative confidence and problem-solving ability.

The design thinking process equipped students with a set of ‘tools’ for tackling ambiguous problems. They no longer feared questions without standard answers, instead becoming excited about “defining” challenges and ‘conceptualising’ solutions. One group designed a guardian spirit called ‘Spirit of the Hat’ for promoting the local traditional craft ‘Yuezhong Fukuoka's Straw Hat’. Using AR technology, tourists scanning street scenes with a mobile app would encounter the spirit narrating the history and craftsmanship. This creativity surpassed the teachers' expectations.

3. Deep-rooted love for one's hometown and a sense of social efficacy. When officials at the town hall listened attentively, took notes, and debated the students' proposals, their sense of pride and responsibility surged. One student reflected: ‘For the first time, I felt I had a responsibility for Namerikawa's future. My voice was heard.’ This sense of efficacy – the belief that ‘I can make a difference’ – is the most valuable psychological asset in preventing young people from becoming detached from their hometowns in the future.

4. Community rediscovery of “children's power”. The proposal session profoundly impacted the attending adults. One official remarked: ‘The perspectives children observe and the solutions they devise often surpass the conventional thinking of us adults. This transcends mere education; it infuses our local revitalisation efforts with the most vibrant energy.’ Among the students' proposals, the concept of an ‘Empty House Window Gallery’ was subsequently adopted by the community association, leading to the inaugural art exhibition.

Discussion and Reflection

Foundations of Success: Authenticity, Support, and Ritual

The project's success rests upon three cornerstones: Authenticity (genuine problems, real users, actual settings) provides irreplaceable intrinsic motivation; Support (process-based assistance from teachers, community liaisons, and local authorities) ensures the project's viability within complex realities; Ritualisation (formal proposal sessions) elevates learning outcomes, granting students authentic experiences of civic identity.

Challenges and Transcendence: The Limitations of Adult Thinking and the Art of Timing

Navigating adult-world complexities: Contacting interviewees and coordinating governmental resources demands considerable effort. Establishing an institutionalised school-community collaboration framework and securing an enthusiastic community liaison officer prove crucial.

·Preserving Children's “Naive” Perspectives: Adults readily dismiss early ideas as “unrealistic” or “unfunded”. Teachers must act as “guardians”, resolutely shielding these precious childlike viewpoints – often harbouring seeds of breakthrough innovation – from such judgements during the conceptual phase.

·Managing project progression: Design thinking is iterative, making time overruns common. Clear phased milestones and checkpoints must be established to assist teams in managing the process.

Dual significance for Japan's regional revitalisation and educational reform

This project offers Japan's ‘regional revitalisation’ a soft approach starting with the next generation: cultivating future local builders and advocates through education. Simultaneously, it charts a course for Japan's ‘Integrated Learning Time’ and social studies reforms: learning must be deeply integrated with social engagement and problem-solving. It cultivates precisely the ‘subjectivity, dialogue, and profundity’ pursued by the new learning guidelines. When children pick up design tools for their hometown's future, education fulfils its most noble mission—nurturing compassionate, capable agents for societal renewal.

Conclusion

The ‘Community Challenges Design Thinking’ project stands as a successful model seamlessly integrating community development needs with children's creativity education. It demonstrates that primary school pupils are not merely future citizens; they can fully function as ‘present-day’ collaborators, contributing tangible ideas and energy to local revitalisation through their unique perspectives and creativity. Utilising design thinking as a bridge, students delve into the fabric of their community, transforming affection for their hometown into rational insights and creative solutions. This process not only revitalised community discourse but also planted deep within the children the seed of ‘I belong here, I can change this place.’ This learning model—using the locality as a classroom, problems as textbooks, creation as assignments, and contribution as assessment—paints a hopeful blueprint for the synergistic development of education and society, not only for Japan but for all regions facing challenges in community vitality.

References

[1]. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (2021). Case Studies on Collaboration between Primary/Secondary Schools and Local Authorities in Regional Areas. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Local Administration Bureau.

[2]. Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 8(1), 30-35.

[3]. Sato, Gaku (2012). Transforming Schools: The Concept and Practice of Learning Communities. Iwanami Shoten.

[4]. Cabinet Office, Regional Revitalisation Headquarters (2020). Regional Revitalisation SDGs Public Relations Strategy.

[5]. IDEO (2012). Design Thinking for Educators (2nd ed.). IDEO.

[6]. Yamazaki, Ryo (2015). Community Design: Creating Mechanisms for Human Connection. Gakugei Publishing.

[7]. Kajitani, Shinji (2019). Lessons in Dialogue: Overcoming Japan's Dialogue Deficit. Shogakukan.

[8]. Toyama Prefectural Board of Education (2019). Practical Report on the Child Development Project for Creating Toyama's Future.