‘Wicked’ is not in the sense of evil, but an issue highly resistant to resolution.
(Australian Public Service Commission, 2007)
Wicked problems refer to problems that cannot be fully understood or solved through linear analytical approaches. They are usually shaped by multiple interconnected factors, and these factors cannot be easily separated from one another. As a result, changing one factor or dimension may create problems in another area, or even generate new problems. The Australian Public Service Commission (2007, pp. 3–4) identifies several key characteristics of wicked problems:
- Wicked problems are difficult to clearly define
- Wicked problems have many interdependencies and are often multi-causal
- Attempts to address wicked problems often lead to unforeseen consequences
- Wicked problems are often not stable
- Wicked problems usually have no clear solution.
- Wicked problems are socially complex
- Wicked problems hardly ever sit conveniently within the responsibility of any one organisation
- Wicked problems involve changing behaviour
- Some wicked problems are characterised by chronic policy failure
For more information about wicked problems, please click here.
The way a wicked problem is defined depends on the perspectives of the participants and decision-makers involved. Because wicked problems involve stakeholders across different scales and levels, decision-makers cannot understand or address such problems from a single perspective (Termeer et al., 2019).
Table 1. Classroom Participation as a Wicked Problem: Criteria and Evidence
| What is wicked problem | Matched situation |
|---|---|
| Wicked problems are difficult to clearly define | In Australian higher education, classroom participation is shaped by cultural differences, English proficiency, and diverse stakeholder positions. For governments, universities, teachers, and learners, participation may carry different meanings and priorities. |
| Wicked problems have many interdependencies and are often multi-causal | Classroom participation is shaped by multiple factors, including learners’ physical and psychological states, teaching methods, learning environments, language proficiency, and course design. |
| Attempts to address wicked problems often lead to unforeseen consequences | Educational technology may support classroom interaction, but it may also create over-reliance. Learners may depend on language scaffolding instead of developing their own English proficiency. |
| Wicked problems are often not stable | Classroom participation may change over time as learners’ language proficiency, confidence, willingness to participate, teachers’ pedagogical approaches, technology availability, and the wider educational environment continue to develop. |
| Wicked problems usually have no clear solution. | Low classroom participation cannot be solved only through technological support or gamification. While technology may provide immediate convenience and make classroom interaction smoother, it may also create learner dependence. Similarly, gamification may increase engagement through interactive and attractive elements, but it may also lead to distraction. |
| Wicked problems are socially complex and it hardly ever sit conveniently within the responsibility of any one organisation | Classroom participation requires flexible teaching methods, active student engagement with knowledge, and shared adaptation to technology. Schools should also provide teachers with appropriate training and guidance so they can use educational technologies more effectively. |
© 2026 — Mucheng Li
The following wicked problem map analyses classroom participation from multiple positions, relationships, and areas of concern. It focuses on four key stakeholders: the Australian government, Australian universities, teachers, and learners.
© 2026 — Mucheng Li
About My Project
This study mainly adopts the Stanford Design Thinking Model to explore feasible ways of improving classroom participation in the context of Australian higher education.
And it is divided into two parts: Contextual Introduction (Part A) and Design and Solution (Part B). Part A provides an overview of the five main stages of the project and explains the rationale behind them. Part B further develops these five stages by breaking them down into a week-by-week action plan.
Part A introduces the key issues surrounding classroom participation in Australian higher education. Click the image to explore more details.
This project seeks to provide linguistic and cognitive scaffolding, as well as technological support, to reduce learners’ speaking anxiety, learning pressure, and cognitive load (Cho & Cho, 2014; Ertuğruloğlu et al., 2023; Grieve et al., 2021). It also aims to create a more inclusive, gamified, and interactive learning environment that can encourage learners to participate more actively, so that classroom participation is not reduced to a superficial requirement (Bond & Bedenlier, 2019; Kahu & Nelson, 2018; Li et al., 2023). Therefore, this design focuses more on changing the way knowledge is delivered and the way learners perceive and interact with information in the classroom, rather than changing the course content itself.
However, this also reflects one of the common criticisms of educational technology:its development is often driven by technological demands, rather than by a clear pedagogical framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). In addition, the proposed technological support, such as real-time translation and an Al summarising assistant, may create new challenges. For instance, learners may become over-reliant on technology, while gamified elements may distract their attention from the learning content and affect how they allocate effort during learning (Gerlich, 2025; Martin et al., 2025; Pérez-Juárez et al., 2023; Zhai et al., 2024).
Stanford Design Thinking Model
© 2026 - Mucheng Li
The Stanford d.school Design Thinking Model is a human-centred and iterative design framework that can be used to guide innovation and problem-solving across different educational and technological contexts (Stanford d.school, 2018). It is particularly suitable for early-stage design projects because it begins with stakeholders’ lived experiences and moves gradually from problem understanding to solution development. The model includes five stages: Empathise, Define, Ideate, Prototype and Test.
- Empathise: Empathy is the foundation of human-centred design. In this stage, designers need to understand the problem from the perspectives of different stakeholders and develop empathy by exploring users’ values, experiences, needs, and concerns. This stage usually involves three key activities: observing, engaging, and immersing.
In this stage, stakeholder questionnaires and informal empathy interviews are used to identify the needs and pain points of both teachers and learners. - Define: The define mode is when you unpack your empathy findings into needs and insights and scope a meaningful challenge. Based on observations of the current learning environment, designersneed to frame a real and relevant problem from the perspectives of stakeholders. The problem should not only reflect genuine needs, but also be possible to address to some extent through design.
Empathy maps will be used in this stage to represent the concerns of both teachers and learners. - Ideate: Ideate is the mode in which you generate radical design alternatives. This stage requires divergent thinking, as designers need to consider the needs of different stakeholders, the challenges that may arise during technology development, and the possible solutions that could respond to the problem.
Journey map will be applied to identify multiple factors that impact on this project. - Prototype: Prototyping gets ideas out of your head and into the world. In this stage, the ideas, problems, and possible solutions developed during ideation are tested through early modelsor sample designs.
- Test: Testing is your chance to gather feedback, refine solutions, and continue to learn about your users. This is an iterative stage that requires ongoing communication with stakeholders. Designers need to place the prototype in the users’ real or simulated context and test it repeatedly, so that the design can be improved based on users’ experiences and feedback.
In this stage, design log will be used to track key pivots in the process.
More info about the Stanford d.school Design Thinking Model ：https://dschool.stanford.edu/tools/design-thinking-bootleg
Implementation Plan
This project is situated in an Australian higher education context, with current postgraduate students and teachers as the target participants. The five project stages are expected to be completed within six months.
Month 1 (4 weeks）：Empathise
Month 2 (4 weeks)：Define
Month 3 - 5 (12 weeks) ： Ideate & Prototype
Month 6 (4 weeks)：Test
