Next Article in Journal
Experiments and Modeling of the Attenuation of the Dynamic Elastic Modulus of Saturated Red Clay under Cyclic Loading
Previous Article in Journal
Design and Implementation of a MHz Frequency Transformer with a Ferromagnetic Fluid Core
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 1
10.3390/su15010024
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Design Thinking Approach for Increasing Innovative Action in Universities: ICT’s Mediating Effect

by
Shubashini Rathina Velu
MIS Department, Prince Mohammad Bin Fahd University, Khobar 34754, Saudi Arabia
Sustainability 2023, 15(1), 24; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010024
Submission received: 20 September 2022 / Revised: 20 October 2022 / Accepted: 28 October 2022 / Published: 20 December 2022
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Introduction: The spread of the COVID-19 virus and the supremacy of digital technologies have amplified global market volatility in all industries. This circumstance will have a lasting impact on students’ employability, so the education sector, particularly universities, should refocus its learning objectives. Design thinking (DT) is a collaborative and resourceful approach to problem-solving in which the demands of end-users and content creators take precedence. Objectives: In this study, the author seeks to comprehend how design thinking procedures in higher learning institutions inspire innovative behavior among undergraduate students. In light of the extensive literature regarding the adoption of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in terms of innovative actions, this study integrates two theoretical foundations (i.e., activity theory to mediate the nature of human activity and how its internalization affects mental development) and constructive learning theory to enhance students’ innovative action. Methods: The data for this quantitative investigation were acquired using an online survey. A total of 300 questionnaires were delivered to undergraduate university students in the eastern part of Saudi Arabia, of whom 208 responded. SmartPLS was utilized to analyze the data. The methodology proposed in this study aims to cultivate in university undergraduate students the sensibility and techniques of designers that are compatible with technological feasible innovative action. Results: This study addresses technology-assisted education in the context of Saudi Arabia. Students’ innovative learning experiences are characterized by autonomy and are supported by design thinking processes mediated by information and communication technology (ICT). On the basis of the findings of this study, the role of empathy and prototype in the DT process appears to be crucial to innovativeness, whereas the roles of define and ideate are detrimental to innovativeness. It has also been determined that ICT indirectly promotes innovative student behavior. Conclusions: Students valued the incorporation of design thinking and ICT in the creation of inventive action to foster creativity in problem-solving skills throughout the digital acceleration. To evaluate the transferability of these findings, future study might be undertaken in other education sectors, such as schools, vocational institutes, and the industry itself. In addition, future data should be analyzed through in-depth interviews or root cause analysis from the perspective of educators and instructional designers.

1. Introduction

The COVID-19 outbreak has made all sectors more volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous due to the emerging dominance of digital technologies [1] and put the world in an unprecedented situation. In particular, the education sector, especially universities, is subject to substantial industrial shifts and repositioning to remain relevant [2]. Universities’ lack of the ability to innovate and offer updated curriculum and pedagogy will affect the employability of university students later in life. Education always works in perpetual motion. Currently, universities and other institutions of higher education (HEIs) are becoming more technology-driven, which presents an ambiguous challenge [3]. According to the World Economic Forum 2020, creative thinking and the ability to solve problems are two of the top five abilities that are projected to be in demand by the year 2025 [4]. These are the new skills of the twenty-first century, and students should go beyond what was expected of them in terms of knowledge and basic skills, particularly when it comes to the most recent applications of technology [5]. Therefore, an approach called design thinking (DT) is perceived as an educational strategy to foster these new skills [6].
Simon coined the term “DT” in 1969, and it has grown in popularity in HEIs in recent decades [7]. It is a creative, collaborative problem-solving method that prioritizes the needs of end-users and content designers. In DT, intuition is crucial, solutions are diverse, experimentation is rapid, and failures are regarded as additional knowledge [8,9]. According to the findings of a recent study, DT is most commonly connected with competencies that are taught in academic settings, such as working together or in teams, being creative, being able to solve problems, and demonstrating empathy [10]. Modern changes in the education sector in the twenty-first century mean that DT is integral in innovative pedagogical designs [11]. With DT, universities can practice empathy and comprehend how different events impact the lives of others, i.e., (i) explore the uncertainty, unfamiliarity, and complexity, (ii) take risks, (iii) welcome innovation, and (iv) predict changes to tackle present and future challenges [12]. Armed with enough vision and creativity, students can utilize DT as a promising approach to create, test, and assess community environmental actions.
Innovation is the dependent variable of this study, and when used in the setting of a classroom, it morphs into a complex network of social and instructional interactions [13,14]. Expanded forms of communication, such as analysis and expression on the part of students and teachers, are allowed to take place within the framework of creative teaching and learning. In the year 2000, the organization known as Web-Based Education stated that education had not even come close to fulfilling the full potential of technology that was based on the internet. Pupils who are capable of multitasking and using their knowledge in a variety of settings are among the students that the educational system is expected to develop to meet the high demands of society [15]. Therefore, embracing new technologies is a fantastic approach for educators to support the demand that is being placed on them by society. In the report that was given to the President of the United States in 1997 regarding the use of technology in the country, the committee of advisors acknowledged the benefits of the constructivist theoretical framework for learning. The committee also recommended that these advantages be investigated further, particularly the constructivist pedagogic model, in addition to the role of technology as a tool to mediate learners’ use of knowledge in new areas and different situations. It is generally accepted that students’ interactions with one another in a classroom contribute significantly to the building of knowledge [16,17]. Students need technologies to support them in higher level knowledge abilities [18]. Technology used in educational settings is intended to enhance students’ capacity for learning by integrating with the system’s current resources and ideas [19]. Teachers must, therefore, adapt their pedagogical practices and beliefs to the new ideas. In this way, educators are tasked with aligning newly developed concepts with long-established pedagogical beliefs and practices.
This study emphasizes how crucial it is for students to meet the instructional outcomes listed in their curriculum and syllabi. In order to carry out the DT process, factors such as empathy, a revived thinking process, improved curriculum, and gamification of lessons using ICT are suggested [20]. As a result, the findings of this study provided insight on the impact of design thinking driven by (a) the growing interest of HEIs in DT, (b) the prominence of problem-solving and creativity as DT skills, (c) the dearth of reliable empirical studies to assess the effects of DT, and (d) the availability of ICT tools for innovative action, and it examines the effects of DT on the current educational landscape.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design Thinking Process

DT is a problem-solving approach that prioritizes the needs of the consumer while also considering the limitations of existing technology and the ways in which a realistic business plan can effectively meet the demands of the market [21,22].
An extensive examination of the DT literature in higher education reveals the following crucial traits: the use of a human-centered strategy, the resolution of vague problems, creativity, teamwork, and being prototype-driven [23,24]. DT is based on observing complicated real-life situations with a human-centered, empathetic perspective, and it expects students to be enthusiastic multidisciplinary collaborators who engage with their surroundings to create new solutions [25].
Previous literature also shows that in DT, teachers function as facilitators rather than [26] employing an iterative, hands-on approach to promote solutions. The undergraduate students are dependent on teachers whom they expect to transfer knowledge to them. In other terms, they are categorized as “passive learners”. Therefore, in a DT intervention, the facilitator includes challenges, collaborative group, tools, and problem-solving activities to help students fully engage with learning [27], hence promoting innovative action among students.
On the basis of the existing body of research, we propose to institutions of higher learning in the eastern region of Saudi Arabia that DT methods with the mediation ability of ICT are a strategy for solving ill-defined problems, and the mindset of students should typically switch to that of designers’ view. This will inspire them to adopt ICT and a human-centered approach, allowing them to express their creativity through instructor-provided activities.

2.2. Constructivism’s Relationship to Design Thinking

As evidenced by the recent emphasis placed on the use of constructivist learning environments, such as open-ended learning environments and problem-based learning, in which DT is connected to constructivist learning theory, the field of instructional design has begun to accommodate constructivist beliefs and practices related to learning. This is evident by looking at recent trends [28,29].
Constructivism is a philosophy that emphasizes learning and maintains that students should be integrated into communities that work to solve problems in the real world [30,31]. Additionally, a constructivist environment should encourage students to construct their knowledge through collaboration, reflection on what they have learned, and the placement of learning in a meaningful context [32]. A human-centered approach, solutions to vague problems, creativity, teamwork, collaboration, and prototype are the main areas of overlap between design thinking and constructivism.
The link between DT and constructivism focuses on the thinking process, and with the DT approach, it supports the solution of ill-defined problems that are related to students’ self-reflection skills [33]. This approach encourages student-centered learning in which the instructor’s role is only as a guide and support in the construction of knowledge. This approach support students towards innovative action in the task they attempt.
The principle of constructivism clearly focuses on knowledge construction. Therefore, in this study, DT processes push the student as a designer of a constructive learning, while the affordances of ICT are used to mediate student interactions and influence innovative action. This suggests that a connection with ICT facilitates knowledge construction and aids in enhancing innovative actions among students because working with problems that are not clearly defined is a hallmark of DT [34]. Additionally, a constructivist environment should encourage students to construct their knowledge through collaboration, reflection on what they have learned, and the placement of learning in a meaningful context [35].

2.3. Empathy and Define Process

One of the fundamental principles and outcomes of any successful DT project is empathy, as defined by the ability to foster a culture that opens up opportunities for everyone to express themselves freely. Goldman et al. (2012) contended that DT is an effective teaching strategy that encourages students to explore, solve problems, and grow more innovative, creative, and open to new ideas [36]. Empathy in the classroom context denotes the interaction between teachers and students, demonstrating the link between what teachers believe or know about their students and what they do to meet those needs [37]. In a situation that involves emotion and logic and inspires insights, inspiration, and intuition, students attempt to develop empathy [38,39].
According to perception, it is made up of three parts: a subjective experience, an emotional response, and a behavioral or expressive response based on the individual’s multifaceted psychological condition [40]. Previous research has highlighted the importance of students’ emotional preferences, such as the emotional value of students [41], relationships between student personalities and career preferences [42,43], and students’ use of affective terminology to characterize the elements affecting feedback [44]. Designers can create solutions with emotional linkages by paying close attention to the emotions of particular groups of clients. This is seen as a manifestation of the marriage of emotion and design, as well as a solution to reduce the cognitive difficulty between users and designers. As a result, designers are motivated to innovate by students’ emotional preferences [45,46]. The individual’s effect is the exterior manifestation of their subjective needs’ psychological state.
To emphasize the connection with the learning environment or education product, technology inclination is described as the product development method most suitable to convey the emotional value and expression of the user into the specific design aspects [46]. The present study proposed the DT–ICT framework for fostering innovative behavior among undergraduates. Evaluating students’ perceived preferences in the field of instructional design in universities is an excellent technique to develop a long-term relationship between instructors and the achievement of innovative action in their learning process.
In order to improve critical thinking and a student-centered approach, teacher–student interaction with the use of ICT may increase the feeling and empathy to be involved in the learning process. In this research, innovative action serves as a dependent variable, and it is connected as sophisticated tools and technologies with pedagogical interactions. Therefore, the use of ICT to as a mediation between DT and innovative action is to make a solution more meaningful with available resources. Thus, this integration involves abductive (what might be) and deductive logic (what should be) in which this ensures a balance between emotions and professional knowledge that stimulates innovative action among HEI students. Limited study on the relationship between design thinking process and ICT prompted the need to test the following hypotheses:
H1: 
A positive relationship exists between empathy and ICT.
H2: 
A positive relationship exists between define and ICT.

2.4. Ideation and Prototype

Design thinking offers creative and innovative solutions to emergent complex problems, including those related to undergraduate students’ academic pressures that have arisen as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Innovation and creative thinking are the main products of DT’s ideation where students gather with an open mind to participate in many ideas. When faced with a complex challenge, students who employ the DT ideation process get to exercise their ill-structured or complex problems and use the think-like-a-designer method to tackle different challenges. The process incorporates creative, systematic modes of reasoning within a rigorous framework with defined tools [47]. By practicing and utilizing setbacks as motivation, students can rise above the challenges presented. In a study by [48], it was found that innovative strategies such as collective learning and cloud environment support the use of actual problems to address challenges, and experimentation is a factor that motivates university students to think out of the box to solve a specific problem.
Next, an assortment of technological applications can be used throughout the prototype stages in class or remotely. Students should collaborate at the DT inspiration stage when examining the problem. For example, stormboard is a collaboration software that assists a group of students in analyzing every facet of a complex problem. Design thinking can accelerate the development and implementation of solution prototypes through a process of inspiration, ideation, and implementation. Digital technology can be leveraged as part of this process to provide care and education in new or enhanced ways [49]. Online knowledge hubs, videoconference-based interactive sessions, virtual simulations, and technology-enhanced coaching for students are potential solutions to address identified issues [50]. The present research, thus, investigates the use of ICT tools that empower students to delve into the subject matter and express their insights and understanding.
Furthermore, the digital tools support the students’ engagement and enhance their participation. This leads to higher innovative actions throughout their learning journey [51,52]. Additionally, they are exposed to a different opportunity called prototyping, which encourages reflection as students learn how to make the most of prototype failures. These prototyping tools are incorporated into options to assist in bridging the gaps between various stakeholders and to minimize misunderstandings as well as the time and effort needed to discuss and share ideas [53]. At the DT prototyping stage, drawing tools such as kleki.com, Sketches, and iDroo help students build the best ideas of prototypes from the ideation steps to gather consumer feedback [54], while Avocado is a tool that supports animation that could make unique design solutions for more effective and extraordinary projects. It is designed with the help of sequential images and the 3D virtual universe that materializes the prototypes. Meanwhile, for mandatory prototypes, Wrike, a project management tool, ensures effective construction planning and prototype trials through itemizing, delineating, and assigning tasks [55]. However, there is limited literature that present the use of DT in curriculum design and development in the eastern region of Saudi Arabia, with limited literature available that utilized DT processes in the co-design of curriculum [56]. This research aims to contribute to the narrowing of the literature gap in this area. Therefore, the DT process using tools in the DT steps is an exciting subject of education research. Hence, the ICT tools are projected to create better ideation and prototype with its enabling features. As such, the following hypotheses were formed:
H3: 
A positive relationship exists between ideation and ICT.
H4: 
A positive relationship exists between prototype and ICT.

2.5. Design Thinking (DT), ICT, and Innovative Action

DT is used along with ICT to train university students to tackle different challenges and problems. It is labelled as social design with social innovation as the objective or collaborative design [57,58]. For example, a technology-driven learning environment was created at Cambridge University called “computer-supported collaborative learning” to assist students in identifying, describing, and solving complex problems [59]. Similarly, at Toronto University, Temple University, and Stanford University, students use the DT process to discover innovative solutions for various environmental, business, and urbanism issues. Additionally, the Marxist analytic method called dialectical materialism, which highlights activity and consciousness as dynamically interrelated, is touched upon.
This provides an alternative perspective to the idealism and mentalistic theories of human knowing that are asserted as preceding activity. However, because there are few resources on how to use activity theory as an effective framework for emerging learning, efforts to use it to analyze learning with students using DT approaches and integrate ICT tools are still dispersed [60]. Additionally, there have been only a few studies using activity theory to look at how ICT tools are used, particularly when it comes to integrating learning technology into HEI curricula [61,62]. Analysis of a phenomenon through the interactions of systems within an activity and the relationships between related entities is one of the analytical benefits of activity theory. Most forms of human activity focus on human mind, concerning the interactions between human activities and consciousness within its relevant environmental context. The activity theory tools involve three important elements, i.e., mediator, tool, and object. Mediator is the subject (individuals engaged in the activity), tool is anything used in the transformation process (physical objects, such as hammer and computer or mental objects, such as model and heuristic), and object is the outcome. In this study, the subject is the student, the tool is ICT, and the object is the outcome or innovative actions.
Aside from the use of problem-solving pedagogical approaches and cutting-edge technology, the implementation of platforms such as MindLab (Denmark), ClimateCoLab (MIT, USA), and Creativity Institute (Australia) in universities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) has enabled students to conceive of and propose revolutionary solutions to modern problems. Training students to think innovatively will help the KSA produce innovative leaders and workforce. Therefore, in the future, organizations will be invigorated with creative ideas from their employees, thus resulting in innovative designs.
In essence, DT is an exploratory process [63] that aids organizations and its members to think like a designer to solve intricate problems [64] and is one way to take advantage of ICT tools that drive innovation. The integration of such tools will enrich the innovative learning environment of students in KSA universities, enabling them to contribute diverse perspectives to break down a challenge and effectively generate novel solutions with the support of prototypes. In the present study, universities are not restricted to combining just one or two tools to enhance their students’ innovative learning process. Instead, they can utilize all available and relevant tools such as OpenIdeo.com, Innocentive.com, MyooCreate.com, Lini, Padlet, Blendspace, and Wrike. Students can apply these platforms for innovative learning and problem-solving, hence enabling them to think like a designer [65,66]. At present, the scarcity of DT in the education sector is a portrayal of how challenging it is to engage digital technology in the learning process without the change of learners’ mindsets [67]. On the basis of the conceptual model in Figure 1, this research recommends further empirical studies to be carried out on the role of DT that encourages higher problem-solving skills and promotes innovation among students using ICT as mediator.
Given the strong rationale for hypotheses (H5–H9), which function as the required conditions for mediation, ICT is expected to act as a mediator in enhancing innovative action. DT processes are assumed to be cultivated into students’ learning paradigm via ICT. Hence, the following hypotheses were formed:
H5: 
Implementation of ICT leads to increased innovative action.
H6: 
ICT mediates the relationship between the empathy and innovative action.
H7: 
ICT mediates the relationship between the define and innovative action.
H8: 
ICT mediates the relationship between the ideation and innovative action.
H9: 
ICT mediates the relationship between the prototype and innovative action.
Given the above background, this study intends to solve the following research questions:
  • Do empathy, define, ideate, and prototype play roles in using ICT tools toward enhancing innovative action?
  • Does the ICT tool enhance innovative action?
  • Does the ICT tool mediate the relationship among empathy, design, ideate, and innovative action?
The main objectives of this study are as follows:
  • To examine the effectiveness of empathy, define, ideate, and prototype students on ICT tools toward enhancing innovative action.
  • To determine the effect of ICT tools on innovative action.
  • To determine the mediating role of ICT tools among empathy, define, ideate, prototype, and innovative action.

2.6. Research Design

The present study employed quantitative design method, and data were collected through an online survey. The questionnaires were designed with no personal identifiers, required to preserve the respondents’ anonymity. A total of 300 questionnaires were distributed among university students in the eastern region of Saudi Arabia, and 208 students gave responses. The questionnaire items were adapted from the system theory, activity theory, design thinking, and various other previous studies [39,68,69]. A five-point Likert scale was used to evaluate the questionnaire, with 1 denoting strongly disagree and 5 denoting strongly agree. The research design elements used in this study are shown in Table 1, along with their corresponding justifications.

3. Results

3.1. Assessment of Measurement Model

One of the important analyses used to validate the research model is through the measurement access of model evaluation. It is an important factor that calculates the reliability based on the correlation of observed indicators and the validity of research model. The data were attained from the questionnaires. Figure 2 illustrates the assessment of the reflective measurement model that assesses the internal consistency reliability and its loading, which was derived from SmartPLS.
The values shown in Table 2 fall within a valid and significant range. According to Hair, 2018, loadings greater than 0.70 denote the correlation of the latent constructs and their respective indicators. Hence, in this study all the loadings are above 0.70 and fall within the acceptable range [70]. Internal consistency reliability is determined by the composite reliability (CR). The CR values for each construct are clearly above the cutoff of 0.70. Hence, this affirms that the internal consistency reliability is satisfactory. Convergent validity is determined by the average variance extracted (AVE), which takes the square of the loading of each indicator on a construct and computes the mean value. An acceptable AVE is 0.50 or higher, indicating that the construct explains at least 50 percent of the variance of its items [71]. The values shown in Table 2 are all above 0.5 for the AVE range, which shows a significant convergent validity level for the study.
Figure 3 shows the structural model with the t-value for each construct for significant testing of structural path. The structural path or model is generated by analyzing the samples using Smart PLS software. Therefore, the bootstrapping procedure is carried out with 5000 samples that are taken from the original sample with replacement to determine the t-values.
Table 3 shows the values for the relative importance of independent variables (IV) in predicting the ICT. Empathy had a medium impact (f2 > 0.15) in producing R2 on ICT, define and ideate had no impact on ICT (f2 < 0.02), and prototype had a medium impact (f2 > 0.15) in producing R2 on ICT [72]. Next, the endogenous or dependent construct (DV) was examined, whereby ICT had a substantial effect (f2 > 0.15) on innovative action. Therefore, in this research, effect size is evaluated to assess the relative impact of IV (on empathy, define, ideate, and prototype) and DV (innovative action). Currently, reporting using only the p-value and t-value in research is insufficient. Therefore, in this research, effect size was calculated to ensure that empirical results were replicable and meaningful.
Furthermore, effect size illustrated the strength of the relationship. On the other hand, Table 3 also recorded the beta value, t-value, and p-value for each construct. Therefore, the predictors of empathy (β = 0.281, p < 0.05) and prototype (β = 0.379, p < 0.05) had a positive relationship with ICT. Define (β = 0.107, p > 0.05) and ideate (β = 0.05, p > 0.05), which did not fall in the significant range, H2 and H3 are, therefore, not supported in the model. H5 (β = 0.414, p < 0.05) was significant, with a t-value of 6.001 (t >= 1.645). Thus, it can be concluded that the implementation of ICT led to increased innovative action amongst students.
Another method carried out during bootstrapping was upper and lower bounds of confidence intervals (bias-corrected). As shown in Table 3, the beta value that falls in between the lower and upper bounds indicated a good confidence interval. Therefore, in this research, the beta value for empathy, prototype, and ICT were perceived as a strong confidence interval because the beta value is between the lower and upper bound. It was concluded that define and ideate constructs are not significant because they span zero (0), indicating there is weak confidence interval.
Mediation is identified as the ‘indirect effect’, whereby it relies on a strong theoretical or conceptual support, crucial in exploring meaningful mediation effects [73,74]. Preacher and Hayers (2008) have criticized the causal procedure of Baron and Kenny. A single inferential test of the indirect effect is all that is needed. Therefore, mediation analysis is an indirect effect. According to Preacher and Hayes (2008), the mediation method is termed ‘bootstrapping the indirect effect’ [75]. There are several types of bootstrapping procedures that can be used to perform the mediation test, namely, Percentile Bootstrapping, Standardised Bootstrap, Bias-corrected and Accelerated (BCa) Bootstrap, Davidson and Hinkley’s Double Bootstrap, and Shi’s Double Bootstrap. On the basis of Table 4, it can be concluded that two mediations were significant at t-value > 1.96 and p-value < 0.05. On the other hand, the mediation of ICT for define and ideate showed t-values < 1.96. Hence, there was no mediation by ICT in the relationship between define and ideate towards innovative action.

3.2. Evaluation of the Performance Matrix’s Importance (IPMA)

The results of basic PLS-SEM outcomes using latent variable scores are extended significantly by IPMA. It is beneficial to expand on and discuss the findings in order to draw managerial conclusions. The graph in Figure 4 shows the visual representation of the IMPA matrix. The IMPA of innovative action reveals that the constructs ideate has high performance, though it is not a necessary variable in predicting those innovations [76]. Hence, instruction designers or academic directors should not focus much on ideate as it could possibly overkill the business when bringing impact to innovative action in the case of higher learning institutions. The other three constructs which are highly important are empathy, prototype, and ICT tools. A prototype is high in performance, while ICT is slightly lower, so the instructional designers/developers should focus on this issue in stimulating innovation in the universities. Universities must foster creative action and a human-centered approach in terms of empathy and define; in turn, students should try to develop empathy for the situation or project at hand in order to inspire insights, inspiration, and intuition [77].

4. Discussion

Ideation and define is one of the most significant design thinking processes for fostering creativity and innovation in any field [78]. In this study, ideate and define had no effect on innovative action, possibly because instructors’ professional development needs improvement in instructional redesign strategies, and there is a lack of active teachers’ engagement in cultivating creativity, collaborative learning, project-based teaching, and learning environments [79]. This may be one of the reasons why the effect size is small or there is no effect; thus, in the future, data should be integrated from the teacher’s perspective through in-depth interviews or root cause analysis.
Mediation is an indirect effect that depends on solid theoretical support while discovering meaningful mediation effects [58,80]. This study assumed that IT tools could mediate the effects of design thinking process on innovative action. Preacher and Hayes criticized the causal procedure by Baron and Kenny. Therefore, the mediation analysis was an indirect effect [65,66]. Preacher and Hayes defined the mediation method as bootstrapping the indirect effect [73]. The results in Table 4 show the lower limit (LL) and upper limit (UL) which do not contain a zero value is mediated with ICT. The specific indirect effects are considered with mediation. Table 4 illustrates that H6 and H9 mediations are significant because the t-values are more than 1.96, while p-values are less than 0.05. Therefore, the results revealed that empathy and prototype mediations were evident in ICT and innovative action. Empathy is an essential advantage by enhancing the driving factors on students’ behavior by dedicated teachers and by using ICT as a tool to support innovative action. Empathy can also be taken as facilities that have established a new innovative approach with the integration of ICT tools. For example, simple emojis are used to motivate students’ learning journey in a digital platform.
Furthermore, hypotheses on define and ideate (H7, H8) confirmed that there is no positive effect between ICT and innovative action. Define stage (H7) exhibits insignificant effect on ICT tools. This is because the define stage (H7) focuses primarily on synthesizing raw data and constructing a meaningful body of knowledge, hence has a little impact on ICT tools. This method is most effectively carried out when team members collaborate and generate an actionable design problem statement.
Second, ideate (H8) exerts insignificant influence on ICT tools. In the DT process, “ideate” refers to creative action through brainstorming activities. Students produce as many ideas as possible to address the problem statement, and ICT may not be necessary for their idea generation because they should spend 10–20% of their study time analyzing innovative talent that intrigues them individually and has the ability to solve real-world problems.

4.1. Theoretical Implication

In this study, the concept of design thinking and its significance in innovative action among students was well-grounded in its hypothesized model. Thus, this study shifted and expanded the argument of the design thinking framework of innovation by presenting a holistic view on the concepts of ICT integration and its influence on innovative action [67]. In many education sectors, the value of capturing innovative processes and high student engagement is a challenging task and needs to be orchestrated appropriately. Hence, integrating theories such as activity theory and constructivist learning theory helps students to develop problem-solving and creativity skills during the digital acceleration that has occurred during the pandemic [81]. It has also been found that the design thinking process best facilitates persistence in students’ performance to shape their learning process. This can be elevated by innovative ICT tools that aim to enhance creative performance in individual and collective situations [82]. Thus, in this research, the role of ICT tools was able to reach a higher level of creativity and innovative mindsets in the digital learning platform to enhance innovative action [83].

4.2. Practical Implications

The education sector is undergoing many changes during and post-COVID-19, especially when adapting to the new norm of teaching and learning methods. Therefore, implementing the DT approach is essential in improving students’ collaborative, innovative skills. Hence, integrating ICT tools to support student learning empowerment improves their overall involvement. The generation of ideas and engagement in class improved students’ ability, thinking capacity, and innovative action [84]. There are many challenges identified in the current learning environment that may cause a high dropout rate from a university, such as students losing interest in pursuing their studies due to very low motivation. This arises due to a lack of a proper learning journey and lack of generative solutions, which are essential factors in improving innovative action [85].
The findings of this study provide new knowledge that challenges universities to develop a think-like-a-designer curriculum that will escalate innovation among students, an essential knowledge-based criterion in the future corporate world. This can be done through frequent student involvement, a design-led solution to exhibit high levels of involvement towards design creating a logical solution by students. Recent studies have suggested complementing innovative tools and practices with technological advancement [61,86]. Previous research stated that a limited innovative approach with technological aspects in higher learning institutions and universities was a potential contributing factor behind the lack of student performance. The integration of ICT tools with the DT approach helps institutions create student engagement, creativity, and teamwork. These are all associated with innovative action among students. Therefore, a holistic platform for universities to handle their competency and growth at both the learner and university level through student’s proactive behavioral process can be established.
By reviewing the extant literature, this study has defined the path as an aesthetic driver of innovation emerged in the students’ current new norm of learning practice. Design-led co-generative solutions on ICT tools were tested and the path hypothesis test of the model was conducted. On the basis of the results of the empirical analysis, the university will embark on DT solutions that will enlighten the student’s innovative action perspective.
This study’s limited breadth stemmed from the fact that it collected data from undergraduate students in the eastern part of Saudi Arabia. Consequently, the findings might not be generalizable to other settings. The proposed study was centered solely on the opinions of the students. Future research should include other stakeholders, including instructors, instructional designers, and academics.
Future research work can be conducted in other education sectors such as government, private schools, international schools, and vocational institutes or the industry itself to examine the transferability of these findings. Future studies may also investigate the application of DT in the perspective of instructional designers and teaching faculties. In addition to this, mixed research approaches may be fruitful, with qualitative research shedding light on particular topics. Action research that identifies and implements practical application will be valuable for evaluating industry trends and learning gaps.

5. Conclusions

Design thinking is a framework used to solve end-user problems. This approach provides in-depth understanding of the user’s feelings, challenges, and values. On the basis of the students’ perspectives and pain points, three key problems were identified: (1) rigid discussion and learning, (2) absence of student-centered learning environment in the universities, and (3) lack of equity in project-based learning, such as industry visits/corporate visits, between the two genders (more industrial visit and collaborative projects for male students than female students).
ICT potential for innovation is realized and accompanied by the necessary pedagogical and institutional change. Therefore, the empathy and prototype state in design thinking approach helped to identify and prioritize students’ needs, such as realigning the learning paradigm with more collaborative, cross-institutional transfer in a continuous manner over time. This ICT is a mechanism of innovation transfer that must be considered throughout the genders equally, and this will further integrate the different aspects of teaching and learning in a coherent way. Hence, technology such as online knowledge hubs, videoconference-based interactive sessions, virtual simulations, and technology-enhanced coaching will minimize the gap between the genders and will be able to address the pain points listed above.
This study confirms the factors that must be addressed by institutions of higher education in order to encourage innovative behavior among students. The outcomes also pave the way for students to have more options when choosing and mastering novel learning approaches. Using the DT process, the ICT tool as a technological element in the learning environment enables students to interact and identify the most innovative and promising new ideas. Additionally, the availability of DT and ICT tools enables students to engage with others to co-create a course or activity through an iterative process of gathering feedback, developing further, and refining it. Students will be able to convert course concepts taught outside of the classroom into relationships with people and places in order to generate actual learning objects.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The research ethics committee (REC) of Prince Mohammad Bin Fahd University has approved this research, with approval number ET292023. This study has been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Iivari, N.; Sharma, S.; Ventä-Olkkonen, L. Digital transformation of everyday life—How COVID-19 pandemic transformed the basic education of the young generation and why information management research should care? Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 55, 102183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Daniel, S.J. Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospect. Paris 2020, 49, 91–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Silalahi, W.P.; Sitorus, F.R. From frustration to enlightenment: Experiences of student exchange program awardees in Taiwan. F1000Research 2021, 10, 468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Fedorova, S.I.; Krylova, Y.S.; Nesterova, A.Y.; Plotnikova, V.S.; Yanushkina, G.M. Leadership for Education in a Digital Age. SHS Web Conf. 2021, 121, 02014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Sailer, M.; Schultz-Pernice, F.; Fischer, F. Contextual facilitators for learning activities involving technology in higher education: The C♭-model. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2021, 121, 106794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Luka, I. Design Thinking in Pedagogy. 2020. J. Educ. Cult. Soc. 2014, 5, 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Torres-Gordillo, J.J.; Garciá-Jiménez, J.; Herrero-Vázquez, E.A. Contributions of technology to cooperative work for university innovation with Design Thinking. Píxel-Bit 2020, 59, 27–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Jin, Y. Play, Design, Create, Fail, Teach, and Repeat: A Design Case Of Designing a Maker Education Course for Preservice Teachers. Int. J. Des. Learn. 2021, 12, 77–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chen, X.; Zhang, B. Hybrid Teaching Practice Exploration of Design Thinking and Methodology Course for the Reform of Design Innovation Education. DEStech Trans. Econ. Bus. Manag. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Jamal, T.; Kircher, J.; Donaldson, J.P. Re-visiting design thinking for learning and practice: Critical pedagogy, conative empathy. Sustainability 2021, 13, 964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Vaugh, T.; Finnegan-kessie, T. The potential of Design Thinking to enable change in Higher Education. All Irel. J. High. Educ. 2020, 12, 1–21. [Google Scholar]
  12. Rosen, Y.; Stoeffler, K.; Simmering, V. Imagine: Design for Creative Thinking, Learning, and Assessment in Schools. J. Intell. 2020, 8, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Chan, M.N.; Nagatomo, D. Study of STEM for sustainability in design education: Framework for student learning and outcomes with design for a disaster project. Sustainability 2022, 14, 312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yedra, R.J.; Aguilar, M.A.A. Design thinking: Methodological strategy for the creation of a playful application for children with dyslexia. Informatics 2022, 9, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Juškevičienė, A.; Dagienė, V.; Dolgopolovas, V. Integrated activities in STEM environment: Methodology and implementation practice. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2021, 29, 209–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Qureshi, R.; Neelofar, V. Pedagogy of research supervision pedagogy: A constructivist model. Res. Pedagog. 2016, 6, 95–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Grivokostopoulou, F.; Kovas, K.; Perikos, I. The effectiveness of embodied pedagogical agents and their impact on students learning in virtual worlds. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Zhang, T.; Shaikh, Z.A.; Yumashev, A.V.; Chład, M. Applied model of E-learning in the framework of education for sustainable development. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Aslan, S.A.; Duruhan, K. The effect of virtual learning environments designed according to problem-based learning approach to students’ success, problem-solving skills, and motivations. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021, 26, 2253–2283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gopinathan, S.; Kaur, A.H.; Ramasamy, K.; Raman, M. Enhancing innovative delivery in schools using design thinking. F1000Research 2022, 10, 927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Skywark, E.R.; Chen, E.; Jagannathan, V. Using the Design Thinking Process to Co-create a New, Interdisciplinary Design Thinking Course to Train 21st Century Graduate Students. Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 777869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Gleason, B.; Jaramillo Cherrez, N. Design Thinking Approach to Global Collaboration and Empowered Learning: Virtual Exchange as Innovation in a Teacher Education Course. TechTrends 2021, 65, 348–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Arifin, N.R.; Mahmud, S.N.D. A Systematic Literature Review of Design Thinking Application in STEM Integration. Creative Educ. 2021, 12, 1558–1571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Fleury, A.L.; Stabile, H.; Carvalho, M.M. An overview of the literature on design thinking: Trends and contributions. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 2016, 32, 1704–1718. [Google Scholar]
  25. Overmyer, T.; Carlson, E.B. Literature Review: Design Thinking and Place. J. Bus. Tech. Commun. 2019, 33, 431–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Santos ABA dos Bianchi, C.G.; Borini, F.M. Open Innovation and Cocreation in the Development of New Products: The role of design thinking. Int. J. Innov. 2018, 6, 112–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Pande, M.; Bharathi, S.V. Theoretical foundations of design thinking—A constructivism learning approach to design thinking. Think. Ski. Creativity 2020, 36, 100637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Balakrishnan, B. Exploring the impact of design thinking tool among design undergraduates: A study on creative skills and motivation to think creatively. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2021, 32, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Jha, A. ICT Pedagogy in Higher Education: A Constructivist Approach. J. Train. Dev. 2017, 3, 64–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Noweski, C.; Scheer, A.; Büttner, N.; von Thienen, J.; Erdmann, J.; Meinel, C. Towards a paradigm shift in education practice: Developing twenty-first century skills with design thinking. In Design Thinking Research: Measuring Performance in Context; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 71–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sipe, B. Design Thinking for the Greater Good: Innovation in the Social Sector. Found. Rev. 2018, 10, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Thi-Huyen, N.; Xuan-Lam, P.; Thanh Tu, N.T. The Impact of Design Thinking on Problem Solving and Teamwork Mindset in A Flipped Classroom. Eurasian J. Educ. Res. 2021, 96, 30–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Atchia, S.M.C. Integration of ‘design thinking’ in a reflection model to enhance the teaching of biology. J. Biol. Educ. 2021, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Özcan, O. Design Thinking in Transitional Period. Front. Commun. 2022, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Clark, R.M.; Stabryla, L.M.; Gilbertson, L.M. Sustainability coursework: Student perspectives and reflections on design thinking. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2020, 21, 593–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Goldman, S.; Carroll, M.P.; Kabayadondo, Z.; Cavagnaro, L.B.; Royalty, A.W.; Roth, B.; Kwek, S.H.; Kim, J. Assessing d. learning: Capturing the journey of becoming a design thinker. In Design Thinking Research: Measuring Performance in Context; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 13–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lorentzen, L.; Hedvall, P.O. Bringing human diversity into design processes through empathic modelling. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 2018, 256, 128–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Dam, R.F.; Siang, T.Y. Design Thinking: Getting Started with Empathy; The Interaction Design Foundation: Aarhus, Denmark, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  39. Pratomo, L.C.; Siswandari Wardani, D.K. The effectiveness of design thinking in improving student creativity skills and entrepreneurial alertness. Int. J. Instr. 2021, 14, 695–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Marina, S.; Daria, S. Images of associative psychology as a generator of architectural education ideas. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 890, 012169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Han, H.; Bong, M.; Kim, S.-i.; Kwon, S.K. Utility value and emotional support of teachers as predictors of student utility value and achievement. Educ. Psychol. 2022, 42, 421–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. O’Tuathaigh, C.M.P.; Idris, A.N.; Duggan, E.; Costa, P.; Costa, M.J. Medical students’ empathy and attitudes towards professionalism: Relationship with personality, specialty preference and medical programme. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0215675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hotle, S.L.; Katz, B.J. Decision support for civil engineering students: Analysis of alumni career paths. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2018, 2672, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Yang, Y.; Long, Y.; Sun, D.; van Aalst, J.; Cheng, S. Fostering students’ creativity via educational robotics: An investigation of teachers’ pedagogical practices based on teacher interviews. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2020, 51, 1826–1842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Colombo, S.; Rampino, L.; Zambrelli, F. The Adaptive Affective Loop: How AI Agents Can Generate Empathetic Systemic Experiences. Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput. 2021, 1363, 547–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Designers and Users: Two Perspectives on Emotion and Design. In Theories and Practice in Interaction Design; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2020; pp. 125–138. [CrossRef]
  47. Kim, H.; Choi, H.; Han, J.; So, H.J. Enhancing teachers’ ICT capacity for the 21st century learning environment: Three cases of teacher education in Korea. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2012, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Baanqud, N.S.; Al-Samarraie, H.; Alzahrani, A.I.; Alfarraj, O. Engagement in cloud-supported collaborative learning and student knowledge construction: A modeling study. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2020, 17, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rice, M.F.; Cun, A. Personalising digital learning for young children: Leveraging psychosocial identities and Techne for literacy development. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2021, 52, 1823–1838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Gong, X.; Guo, Z.; Xie, Z. Using Kansei Engineering for the Design Thinking Framework: Bamboo Pen Holder Product Design. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. van Gompel, K. Cultivating 21st Century Skills: An Exploratory Case Study of Design Thinking as a Pedagogical Strategy for Elementary Classrooms. Ph.D. Thesis, Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  52. Li, M. Fostering design culture through cultivating the user-designers’ design thinking and systems thinking. Syst. Pract. Action Res. 2002, 15, 385–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zheng, X.; Yin, H.; Wang, X. “Doing authentic research” with artifacts to facilitate teacher learning across multiple communities. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2021, 105, 103394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Dam, R.; Siang, T. Stage 4 in the Design Thinking Process: Prototype|Interaction Design Foundation; Interaction Design Foundation: Aarhus, Denmark, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  55. Hashim, A.M.; Aris, S.R.S.; Fook, C.Y. Promoting empathy using design thinking in project-based learning and as a classroom culture. Asian J. Univ. Educ. 2019, 15, 14–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Lee, H.K.; Park, J.E. Designing a New Empathy-Oriented Prototyping Toolkit for the Design Thinking Process: Creativity and Design Sensibility. Int. J. Art Des. Educ. 2021, 40, 324–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Bourgeois-Bougrine, S.; Latorre, S.; Mourey, F. Promoting creative imagination of non-expressed needs: Exploring a combined approach to enhance design thinking. Creativity Stud. 2018, 11, 377–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Pizarro, N.; Graybeal, G.M. Learning Design Thinking: A Social Innovation Jam. Entrep. Educ. Pedagog. 2021, 5, 208–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hwang, W.-Y.; Nurtantyana, R.X. Education: Education of All Things with AI and Edge Computing—One Case Study for EFL Learning. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ngandeu, J.B. Dealing with barriers to the integration of computer-assisted language learning in an african low-tech context: Is the tpack framework enough? An analysis of ict integration in a low-tech context. Per Linguam 2020, 36, 90–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Méndez, D.; Méndez, M.; Anguita, J.M. Digital Teaching Competence in Teacher Training as an Element to Attain SDG 4 of the 2030 Agenda. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Sam, M.K.; Soong, C.J. A Study of Blended Learning in Higher Learning Education: Implementation and Challenges in 21 st Century. INTI J. 2019, 2019. Available online: http://eprints.intimal.edu.my/id/eprint/1279 (accessed on 19 September 2022).
  63. Gonen, E. Tim Brown, Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation 2009. Mark. Glob. Dev. Rev. 2019, 4, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Wyckoff, K. Solving Homeland Security’s Wicked Problems: A Design Thinking Approach. Ph.D. Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  65. Severino, L.; Petrovich, M.; Mercanti-Anthony, S.; Fischer, S. Using a design thinking approach for an asynchronous learning platform during COVID-19. IAFOR J. Educ. 2021, 9, 145–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Bianconi, F.; Filippucci, M. Generative Education: Thinking by Modeling/Modeling by Thinking. In Architectural Draughtsmanship; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 1009–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Recke, M.P.; Perna, S. Emergent narratives in remote learning experiences for project based education. Electron. J. e-Learn. 2021, 19, 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lattemann, C.; Arntsen, E.; Flaten, B.-T.; Fürst, N.; Holen, J.; Cappelen, B. Is There a Proper Way to Teach Design Thinking? Empirical Evidence from Design Thinking in Education. J. Des. Think. 2020, 1, 35–48. [Google Scholar]
  69. Winstanley, L. Mapping Activity Theory To a Design Thinking Model ATDT: A Framework to Propagate a Culture of Creative Trust. In Proceedings of the International Association of Societies of Design Research Conference—Design Revolutions, Manchester, UK, 2–5 September 2019. [Google Scholar]
  70. Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M.A. Primer on Partial Least Squares StructuralEquation Modeling PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2014, 26, 106–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Valentini, F.; Damásio, B.F. Average Variance Extracted and Composite Reliability: Reliability Coefficients. Psicol. Teor. Pesqui. 2016, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences; Lawrence Earlbaum Associates: Hillside, NJ, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  73. Hayes, A.F.; Preacher, K.J.; Myers, T.A. Mediation and the estimation of indirect effects in political communication research. In The Sourcebook for Political Communication Research: Methods, Measures, and Analytical Techniques; Routledge: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Hair, J.F.; Babin, B.J.; Krey, N. Covariance-Based Structural Equation Modeling in the Journal of Advertising: Review and Recommendations. J. Advert. 2017, 46, 163–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Preacher, K.J.; Hayes, A.F. Assessing mediation in communication research. In The Sage Sourcebook of Advanced Data Analysis Methods for Communication Research; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  76. Chan, J.I.L.; Muthuveloo, R. Vital organisational capabilities for strategic agility: An empirical study. Asia-Pacific J. Bus. Adm. 2020, 12, 223–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Siricharoen, W.V. Using Empathy Mapping in Design Thinking Process for Personas Discovering. In Context-Aware Systems and Applications, and Nature of Computation and Communication; Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social-Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, LNICST; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Loewe, S. Toward a Critical Design Thinking: Propositions to Rewrite the Design Thinking Process. Dialectic 2019, 2, 132–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Chandra, S.R.V. Blended Learning: A New Hybrid Teaching Methodology. Jrsp-Elt 2019, 3. Available online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED611486 (accessed on 19 September 2022).
  80. Morrison, D. Using Activity Theory to Design Constructivist Online Learning Environments for Higher Order Thinking: A Retrospective Analysis. Can. J. Learn. Technol./La Rev. Can. de l’apprentissage et de la Technol. 2003, 29, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Sahagun, M.; Moser, R.; Shomaker, J.; Fortier, J. Developing a Growth-Mindset Pedagogy for Higher Education and Testing its Efficacy. Soci. Sci. Humanit. Open 2021, 4, 100168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Toumi, K.; Girandola, F.; Bonnardel, N. Technologies for Supporting Creativity in Design: A View of Physical and Virtual Environments with Regard to Cognitive and Social Processes. Creativity 2021, 8, 189–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Chai, C.S.; Kong, S.-C. Professional learning for 21st century education. J. Comput. Educ. 2017, 4, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Martín García, T.; Almaraz Menéndez, F. University hackathons: New ways of educational and social innovation. the experience of the university of Salamanca. J. High Educ. Theory Pract. 2021, 21, 56–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Yaghmaie, P.; Vanhaverbeke, W. Identifying and describing constituents of innovation ecosystems: A systematic review of the literature. EuroMed J. Bus. 2020, 15, 283–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Noh, S.C.; Karim, A.M.A. Design thinking mindset to enhance education 4.0 competitiveness in Malaysia. Int. J. Eval. Res. Educ. 2021, 10, 494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 00024 g001 550
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
Sustainability 15 00024 g001
Sustainability 15 00024 g002 550
Figure 2. Measurement model based on DT–ICT–Innovative action.
Figure 2. Measurement model based on DT–ICT–Innovative action.
Sustainability 15 00024 g002
Sustainability 15 00024 g003 550
Figure 3. Structural model depicting t-values.
Figure 3. Structural model depicting t-values.
Sustainability 15 00024 g003
Sustainability 15 00024 g004 550
Figure 4. Importance Performance Map (IPMA).
Figure 4. Importance Performance Map (IPMA).
Sustainability 15 00024 g004
Table
Table 1. Elements of research design.
Table 1. Elements of research design.
DesignElementExplanation
The studyExploratoryThis research aims to establish the integration of ICT tools via DT process among students, which cultivates innovation in their learning process. The research scope is universities in the eastern region of Saudi Arabia, and the specific domain is still at an embryonic stage.
Role of theoryTheory testingThis research utilized deductive approach to test the theoretical framework, i.e., the role of empathy, define, ideate, and prototype processes, as well as to analyze the effect of mediation in enhancing innovative action among students.
Sampling processPurposive
sampling		Purposive sampling was employed to select respondents from universities in the eastern region of Saudi Arabia. The universities were selected using RAND (random) function of Excel.
Data collection
method		SurveyThe questionnaire was prepared using Google form. Owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, social media, such as email and WhatsApp, were used to distribute the questionnaire to the university students. According to G*Power analysis, at least 158 respondents were required for this quantitative study. In fact, 208 were successfully collected.
Researcher
interference		MinimalThe data collection activity did not hinder respondents’ natural course of activities or work processes.
Table
Table 2. Factor loadings and CR for independent and dependent variables.
Table 2. Factor loadings and CR for independent and dependent variables.
ConstructItemsLoadingsAVECR
EmpathyEmp10.7840.6160.865
Emp20.792
Emp30.807
Emp40.756
DefineDef10.7360.6060.821
Def30.823
Def40.774
IdeateIde10.9310.7340.846
Ide20.776
PrototypePro10.7030.5630.837
Pro20.825
Pro30.739
Pro40.73
Table
Table 3. The assessment of structural model—Effect of size.
Table 3. The assessment of structural model—Effect of size.
HypothesisRelationshipStandard BetaSample Meant-Valuep-ValueLLULf2Level of AcceptanceDecision
H1Empathy → ICT0.2810.2773.5630 **0.1310.4410.197Medium impactSupported
H2Define → ICT0.1070.1111.5880.112−0.0230.2430.011No impactNot supported
H3Ideate → ICT0.050.0490.8380.402−0.0690.1670.004No impactNot supported
H4Prototype → ICT0.3790.3825.3570 **0.2360.5090.17Medium ImpactSupported
H5ICT → Innovative Action0.4140.426.0010 **0.2550.530.365Substantial impactSupported
Note: p < 0.05 **; f2: 0.02—small effect size, 0.15—medium effect size, 0.35—substantial effect size [72]; LL < Beta Value < UL means good confidence interval (CI).
Table
Table 4. The assessment of mediation analysis.
Table 4. The assessment of mediation analysis.
Confidence IntervalDecision
HypothesisRelationshipStandard Beta Standard Error t-ValueLLUL
H6Empathy → ICT → Innovative Action0.1160.0383.0310.0520.202Supported
H7Define → ICT → Innovative Action0.0470.031.473−0.080.11Not supported
H8Ideate → ICT → Innovative Action0.0210.0260.795−0.0240.078Not Supported
H9Prototype → ICT → Innovative Action0.160.0423.7530.0830.243Supported
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Velu, S.R. Design Thinking Approach for Increasing Innovative Action in Universities: ICT’s Mediating Effect. Sustainability 2023, 15, 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010024

AMA Style

Velu SR. Design Thinking Approach for Increasing Innovative Action in Universities: ICT’s Mediating Effect. Sustainability. 2023; 15(1):24. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010024

Chicago/Turabian Style

Velu, Shubashini Rathina. 2023. "Design Thinking Approach for Increasing Innovative Action in Universities: ICT’s Mediating Effect" Sustainability 15, no. 1: 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010024

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop