Change in Learning Motivation Observed through the Introduction of Design Thinking in a Mobile Application Programming Course
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Research Objectives
3. Methodology
3.1. Research Methods and Tools
3.2. Course Content and Planning
3.3. Study Field and Equipment
3.4. Teaching Process
- Foundation: To lay a solid foundation, students construct preliminary knowledge through classroom teaching and divide them into different project groups.
- Brainstorming: The teacher designs several real problems, and then each group writes out the problem that they want to solve, discussing it with the team to generate possible solutions.
- User interview: Using Persona and writing user story methods, students try to find out the needs of the users.
- Prototype design: The students propose the most desired functions for the solution. The team will self-assess the importance of each function and fill in the function list form. Students put forward each group’s plan and draw a high-level flow chart based on each function that eventually forms the prototype wireframe.
- User confirmation: Invite users to discuss whether the process and interface design give good user experience. Decide on the final design and draw the detailed user interface.
- System implementation: Students perform the system design, illustrate the workflow charts and implement the mobile applications.
- Thinking and feedback: Back to the classroom, the students discuss the knowledge that is lacking in the process of implementation, and then are complemented by the teacher.
4. Results
4.1. Reliability Analysis of the Initial Course Expectation Questionnaire
4.2. Analysis of Changes in Learning Motivation of Design Thinking Teaching Intervention
4.3. Student Outcomes
4.4. Student Feedback
- I think the “design thinking” introduced by the external expert is very helpful, and I like this teaching method very much, and it has benefited me a lot!
- I hope there will be opportunities to invite external experts to teach UX analysis courses in the future.
- For the “iOS Programming” course in the first semester of the 2020 academic year, the opinions of the students in the final questionnaire are as follows:
- The speed of demonstration during teaching can be a little slower.
- Let me write a great app. It’s great, thank you teacher.
5. Discussion and Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ma, L.; Li, X.; Su, Z. The Problems and Solutions Existing in the Autonomous Learning under the Network Environment. In Proceedings of the 2013 the International Conference on Education Technology and Information System (ICETIS 2013), Sanya, China, 21–22 June 2013; pp. 854–857. [Google Scholar]
- Tishman, S.; Perkins, D.N.; Jay, E. The Thinking Classroom: Learning and Teaching in a Culture of Thinking, 1st ed.; Pearson Education: Boston, MA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Thoring, K.; Mueller, R. Understanding design thinking: A process model based on method engineering. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, London, UK, 8–9 September 2011; pp. 493–498. [Google Scholar]
- Banerjee, B.; Gibbs, T. Teaching the Innovation Methodology at the Stanford d.school. In Creating Innovation Leaders: A Global Perspective, 1st ed.; Banerjee, B., Ceri, S., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 163–174. [Google Scholar]
- Tu, J.-C.; Liu, L.-X.; Wu, K.-Y. Study on the Learning Effectiveness of Stanford Design Thinking in Integrated Design Education. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Engineering Technology Education Certification and Curriculum Committee Meeting Record; Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering, Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology: Tainan, Taiwan, 2018; (Discussed on 2 May 2018, Unpublished Internal Document).
- Dunne, D.; Martin, R. Design thinking and how it will change management education: An interview and discussion. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2006, 5, 512–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Glen, R.; Suciu, C.; Baughn, C. The need for design thinking in business schools. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2014, 13, 653–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brown, T.J.; Kuratko, D.F. The impact of design and innovation on the future of education. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 2015, 9, 147–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, T.J.; Wyatt, J. Design thinking for social innovation. Stanf. Soc. Innov. Rev. 2010, 8, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cook, K.L.; Bush, S.B. Design thinking in integrated STEAM learning: Surveying the landscape and exploring exemplars in elementary grades. Sch. Sci. Math. 2018, 118, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Avcu, Y.; Er, K. Design Thinking Applications in Teaching Programming to Gifted Students. J. Educ. Technol. Online Learn. 2020, 3, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsai, M.-J.; Wang, C.-Y. Assessing Young Students’ Design Thinking Disposition and Its Relationship With Computer Programming Self-Efficacy. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2020, 59, 410–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rajashekharaiah, K.M.M.; Pawar, M.; Patil, M.S.; Kulenavar, N.; Joshi, G.H. Design Thinking Framework to Enhance Object Oriented Design and Problem Analysis Skill in Java Programming Laboratory: An Experience. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 4th International Conference on MOOCs, Innovation and Technology in Education (MITE), Madurai, India, 9–10 December 2016; pp. 200–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, T. Design thinking. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2008, 86, 84–92. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Cross, N. Design Thinking: Understanding How Designers Think and Work, 1st ed.; Berg: Oxford, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Dorst, K.; Cross, N. Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution. Des. Stud. 2001, 22, 425–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Henriksen, D.; Richardson, C.; Mehta, R. Design thinking: A creative approach to educational problems of practice. Think. Ski. Creat. 2017, 26, 140–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. J. Res. Personal. 1985, 19, 109–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deci, E.L. On the nature and functions of motivation theories. Psychol. Sci. 1992, 3, 167–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Escher, C.; Creutzfeldt, J.; Meurling, L.; Hedman, L.; Kjellin, A.; Felländer-Tsai, L. Medical students’ situational motivation to participate in simulation based team training is predicted by attitudes to patient safety. BMC Med. Educ. 2017, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Guay, F.; Vallerand, R.J.; Blanchard, C. On the Assessment of Situational Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: The Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS). Motiv. Emot. 2000, 24, 175–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2000, 25, 54–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gutiérrez, M.; Ruiz, L.; López, E. Perceptions of Motivational Climate and Teachers’ Strategies to Sustain Discipline as Predictors of Intrinsic Motivation in Physical Education. Span. J. Psychol. 2010, 13, 597–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Dam, R.F.; Siang, T.Y. 5 Stages in the Design Thinking Process. Available online: https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/5-stages-in-the-design-thinking-process (accessed on 11 February 2021).
- Lee, M.; Tserng, H. Applying knowledge map for junior construction engineer. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on Robotics and Automation in Construction (ISARC 2006), Tokyo, Japan, 3–5 October 2006; pp. 746–750. [Google Scholar]
- Netemeyer, R.G.; Bearden, W.O.; Sharma, S. Scaling Procedures. Issues and Applications, 1st ed.; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- PSPP-GNU Project-Free Software Foundation-GNU.org. Available online: https://www.gnu.org/software/pspp/ (accessed on 2 February 2021).
- Keras: Deep Learning for Humans. Available online: https://github.com/fchollet/keras (accessed on 10 June 2020).
- Core ML. Apple Developer Documentation. Available online: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/coreml (accessed on 20 July 2020).
- Pham, Y.D.; Fucci, D.; Maalej, W. A First Implementation of a Design Thinking Workshop during a Mobile App Development Course Project. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Software Engineering Education for Millennials (SEEM), Gothenburg, Sweden, 2 June 2018; pp. 56–63. [Google Scholar]
- Gama, K.; Castor, F.; Alessio, P.; Neves, A.; Araujo, C.; Formiga, R.; Soares-Neto, F.; Oliveira, H. Combining Challenge-Based Learning and Design Thinking to Teach Mobile App Development. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), San Jose, CA, USA, 3–6 October 2018; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Qin, L.; Li, B.; Yang, L.-P. Programming Thinking Training and Course Design for iOS Mobile Development. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computer Science & Education (ICCSE), Delft, The Netherlands, 18–22 August 2020; pp. 577–582. [Google Scholar]
Week | Lesson Topic | Content Description |
---|---|---|
1 | Logistics, iOS Overview and MVC | iOS object-oriented programming and MVC development method |
2 | Xcode and Interface Builder | Introduction to Xcode Development Tool |
3 | Swift programming language | Introduction to Swift programming language |
4 | Auto Layout | Use Auto Layout and stacked view to build adaptive User Interface |
5 | App prototype design | App prototype design and pre-planning |
6 | Tabular App Basic Design | Design and implement basic table style App |
7 | Use Prototype Cell to customize the table view | Customize the table view cell to enhance the presentation of table data |
8 | Table view interaction | Handle table column deletion and sliding actions |
9 | Mid-term programming practice exam | Test students’ practical ability |
10 | APP design thinking | App idea brainstorming, Persona, and User Story design. |
11 | APP prototyping | The team self-assessed the importance of each function, compares each process, and develops a prototype. |
12 | User confirmation and detail interface design | The user confirms, determines the design, and draws the detail user interface. |
13 | Map application | How to tag data on the map |
14 | Basic animation, visual effects | Create animation and visual effects |
15 | Camera | Start the phone camera, take and save pictures. |
16 | Core Data | Save data to database |
17 | Thinking and feedback | Discuss the problems of project development |
18 | Final project report | Evaluations of the final project reports. |
Questionnaire |
---|
Q1. I am very interested in learning iOS courses. |
Q2. I think learning iOS courses is helpful to my future employment. |
Q3. I think the learning materials selected by the teachers meet the core objectives of the curriculum. |
Q4. I think the course syllabus can clearly convey the content of the course. |
Q5. I am very interested in the iOS course integrated with design thinking methods. |
Q6. I am very interested in designing my own iOS APP project at the end of the semester. |
(a) | ||||
Scale Mean If Item Deleted | Scale Variance If Item Deleted | Corrected Item-Total Correlation | Cronbach’s Alpha If Item Deleted | |
Q1 | 20.55 | 5.97 | 0.5 | 0.66 |
Q2 | 20.36 | 6.53 | 0.54 | 0.67 |
Q3 | 20.36 | 6.62 | 0.5 | 0.67 |
Q4 | 20.32 | 6.99 | 0.44 | 0.69 |
Q5 | 20.55 | 5.69 | 0.41 | 0.7 |
Q6 | 20.82 | 4.54 | 0.53 | 0.67 |
(b) | ||||
Scale Mean If Item Deleted | Scale Variance If Item Deleted | Corrected Item-Total Correlation | Cronbach’s Alpha If Item Deleted | |
Q1 | 18.95 | 7.5 | 0.74 | 0.82 |
Q2 | 18.86 | 7.68 | 0.73 | 0.82 |
Q3 | 18.7 | 7.94 | 0.74 | 0.82 |
Q4 | 18.78 | 8.56 | 0.53 | 0.86 |
Q5 | 18.92 | 7.74 | 0.73 | 0.82 |
Q6 | 19.3 | 8.38 | 0.46 | 0.87 |
(a) | |||
Mean | Std Dev | Variance | |
Q1 | 4.05 | 0.72 | 0.52 |
Q2 | 4.23 | 0.53 | 0.28 |
Q3 | 4.23 | 0.53 | 0.28 |
Q4 | 4.27 | 0.46 | 0.21 |
Q5 | 4.05 | 0.9 | 0.81 |
Q6 | 3.77 | 1.11 | 1.23 |
(b) | |||
Mean | Std Dev | Variance | |
Q1 | 3.76 | 0.76 | 0.58 |
Q2 | 3.84 | 0.73 | 0.53 |
Q3 | 4 | 0.67 | 0.44 |
Q4 | 3.92 | 0.68 | 0.47 |
Q5 | 3.78 | 0.71 | 0.51 |
Q6 | 3.41 | 0.8 | 0.64 |
(a) | ||
2019-10-14 | 2019-12-26 | |
Intrinsic motivation (IM) | 5.11 | 5.82 |
Identified regulation (IR) | 5.41 | −5.93 |
External regulation (ER) | 4.97 | 5.16 |
Amotivation (AM) | 3.53 | 3.26 |
(b) | ||
2020-11-05 | 2021-1-21 | |
Intrinsic motivation (IM) | 4.81 | 5.38 |
Identified regulation (IR) | 5.18 | 5.55 |
External regulation (ER) | 4.76 | 5.14 |
Amotivation (AM) | 3.84 | 3.88 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Hsu, T.-H.; Horng, G.-J.; See, A.R. Change in Learning Motivation Observed through the Introduction of Design Thinking in a Mobile Application Programming Course. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7492. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137492
Hsu T-H, Horng G-J, See AR. Change in Learning Motivation Observed through the Introduction of Design Thinking in a Mobile Application Programming Course. Sustainability. 2021; 13(13):7492. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137492
Chicago/Turabian StyleHsu, Tz-Heng, Gwo-Jiun Horng, and Aaron Raymond See. 2021. "Change in Learning Motivation Observed through the Introduction of Design Thinking in a Mobile Application Programming Course" Sustainability 13, no. 13: 7492. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137492
APA StyleHsu, T.-H., Horng, G.-J., & See, A. R. (2021). Change in Learning Motivation Observed through the Introduction of Design Thinking in a Mobile Application Programming Course. Sustainability, 13(13), 7492. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137492