A Systematic Review on Design Thinking Integrated Learning in K-12 Education
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- RQ1:
- What is the current research status of DTIL in K-12 education?
- RQ2:
- What kind of curriculum domains are taught in DTIL?
- RQ3:
- How to evaluate students’ learning in DTIL?
- RQ4:
- What intervention approaches are employed in DTIL?
2. Method
- (a)
- Full peer-reviewed English paper published in SSCI journals.
- (b)
- Empirical study conducted for K-12 students, the term “empirical study”, which means either quantitative or qualitative, and not a literature review, framework, or proposal.
- (c)
- Papers involved in DTIL (using “design thinking” in any part of the paper, such as title, abstract, keywords, or main text).
- (d)
- The DTIL featured in the study targets students rather than pre-service/in-service teachers.
2.1. Keyword Search
2.2. Snowball Approach
3. Results
3.1. What Is the Current Status of DTIL in K-12 Education?
3.1.1. Distribution of Articles on Design Thinking over Time
3.1.2. Sample Group Level, Size, and Duration
3.2. What Kind of Curriculum Domains Are Taught in DTIL?
3.2.1. Distribution of Studies on Curriculums
3.2.2. Design Thinking Model Implemented in the Empirical Studies
3.3. How to Evaluate Students’ Learning in DTIL?
3.3.1. Dependent Variables
3.3.2. Evaluation Instruments
3.4. What Intervention Approaches Were Employed in DTIL?
3.4.1. Study Design
3.4.2. Course Type
3.4.3. Grouping
3.4.4. Design Thinking Task/Challenge
3.4.5. Design Tools and Materials
4. Discussion
4.1. The Current Status of DTIL
4.1.1. Research Trend
4.1.2. Educational Level
4.1.3. Samples and Duration
4.2. Curriculum Domain in DTIL
4.2.1. Curriculum
4.2.2. Design Thinking Model
4.3. Learning Evaluation in DTIL
4.3.1. Dependent Variables
4.3.2. Evaluation Instruments
4.4. Interventions in DTIL
4.4.1. Study Design
4.4.2. Course Type
4.4.3. Grouping
4.4.4. Design Thinking Task/Challenge
4.4.5. Learning Tools and Materials
5. Conclusions and Implication
6. Limitations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Paper | Sample Size | Educational Level | Duration | Curriculum | Design Thinking Model (Competence) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aflatoony, Wakkary, Neustaedter (2018) [33] | 39 | high school | 9 weeks | design and technology | A five-step design process including empathise, define, ideate, prototype and test |
Aranda, Lie, Guzey (2020) [54] | 26 | middle school | 6 days | science | Stage 1: plan a design: cognitive memory, divergent thinking, evaluative thinking. Stage 2: redesign: evaluative thinking. Stage 3: communicate to the client: cognitive memory, divergent thinking |
Blom and Bogaers (2020) [46] | 18 | middle school | 2 h | technology | N/A |
Carroll et al. (2010) [38] | 24 | middle school | 3 weeks | geography | The components of the design thinking process include the following: understand, observe, point of view, ideate, prototype, test |
Chin et al. (2019) [68] | 197 | middle school | 5 weeks | multidisciplinary | N/A |
Christensen et al. (2019) [40] | 246 | middle school | 2 years | design | Six phases: (1) design problem; (2) field studies; (3) ideation; (4) fabrication; (5) argumentation; (6) reflection |
Cutumisu, Chin, Schwartz (2019) [60] | 97 | middle school | N/A | multidisciplinary | N/A |
Cutumisu, Schwartz, Lou (2020) [65] | 80 | middle school | 5 weeks | multidisciplinary | N/A |
Derler et al. (2020) [55] | 117 | high school | 2 years | multidisciplinary | Three phases: (1) exploration, (2) product ideation, and (3) product prototyping and optimisation |
English (2019) [21] | 34 | elementary school | N/A | STEM | The inclusion of design processes involved students in learning through design involving planning, sketching, and testing |
Fan, Yu, Lou (2018) [43] | 103 | high school | 15 weeks | technology and engineering | Clarify problems and constraints, collect information, develop possible solutions, predictive analysis, selection solutions, modelling, and testing, evaluating and revising, optimization |
Fleer (2021) [64] | 13 | kindergarten | 7 weeks | engineering | Designing, making, appraising |
Forbes et al. (2021) [27] | 576 | Kindergarten and Primary School | N/A | STEM | Five phases of discovery, interpretation, ideation, experimentation, and evolution to scaffold the ‘design process’ (The IDEO model) |
Gennari, Melonio, Rizvi (2021) [49] | 8 | middle school | N/A | technology | (1) exploration and familiarisation, (2) ideation and conceptualisation, (3) programming and prototyping |
Gomoll et al. (2018) [61] | 16 | middle school | 5 weeks | robotics | Ask questions (define problem), imagine (brainstorm ideas), collect information,develop, and test solutions, improve (how did this work? How can we make it better?) |
Guzey and Jung (2021) [34] | 27 | middle school | 15 days | science | Cognitive memory, convergent thinking, divergent thinking, evaluative thinking |
Kelley and Sung (2017) [47] | 91 | elementary school | 1 year | science | N/A |
Kelley, Capobianco, Kaluf (2015) [59] | 21 | elementary school | 1–2 weeks | science | Cognitive processes identified by Halfin’s (1973) study of high-level designers: Analysing, computing, defining problem(s), designing, interpreting data, modelling, predicting, questions/hypotheses, testing. |
Kijima and Sun (2021) [32] | 26 | middle school | 3 days | STEAM | Five iterative stages (Stanford d.school), including: empathise, define (capture needs), ideate (brainstorm solutions), prototype and test (seek feedback) |
Kijima, Yang-Yoshihara, Maekawa (2021) [50] | 97 | middle and high school | 3 days | STEAM | Five stages of—from empathy-building to needs—finding, brainstorming, prototyping, and testing |
Kim, Seo, Kim, (2022) [52] | 28 | elementary school | 3 weeks | engineering | Explore, empathize, ideate, create, test |
Ladachart et al. (2021) [51] | 38 | middle school | 4 weeks | STEM | Six aspects of design thinking, namely (1) collaboratively working with diversity, (2) being confident and optimistic to use creativity, (3) orientation to learning by making and testing, (4) mindfulness to process and impacts on others, (5) being comfortable with uncertainty and risks, and (6) human-centeredness |
Leinonen et al. (2020) [57] | 64 | elementary school | 2 months | multidisciplinary | N/A |
Lin et al. (2020) [48] | 62 | middle school | 7 weeks | technology | Three phases: Inspiration: real-world problem, ideation: design scheme, implementation: digital work |
Lin, Chang, Li (2020) [31] | 169 | middle school | 8 weeks | engineering | Five stages of engineering design thinking (empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test) |
Marks and Chase (2019) [35] | 78 | middle school | 4 weeks | science | Iterative make-test-think process |
Marks and Chase (2019) [35] | 89 | middle school | 3 weeks | science | Iterative make-test-think process |
Mentzer, Becker, Sutton (2015) [42] | 59 | high school | 3 h | engineering | 8 stages: problem definition,information gathering, idea generation, modelling, feasibility, evaluation, decision making, communication |
Mentzer, Huffman, Thayer (2014) [41] | 20 | high school | 3 h | engineering | Problem definition, gathering information, generating ideas, modelling, feasibility, evaluation, decision, communication |
Nichols et al. (2021) [36] | 159 | elementary school | 12 weeks | science | Defining, designing, producing, evaluating |
Parikh, Maddulety, Meadows (2020) [53] | 70 | middle school | 5 months | N/A | N/A |
Rao, Puranam, Singh (2022) [23] | 195 | middle school | 4 days | science | Four stages called ‘feel’, ‘imagine’, ‘do’ and ‘share’ |
Simeon, Samsudin, Yakob (2022) [37] | 89 | high school | 3 months | science | The five-stage model proposed by the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford: empathy, define (the problem), ideate, prototype, and test |
Sung and Kelley (2019) [44] | 27 | elementary school | 1 year | science | Identify problem, share and develop a plan, create, and test, communicate results and gather feedback, improve and retest |
Tsai and Wang (2021) [28] | 350 | middle school | N/A | STEAM | Four phases: empathize, define, ideate and prototype |
Van Mechelen et al. (2019) [58] | 49 | elementary school | 1 day | N/A | The Collaborative Design Thinking (CoDeT): introduction, sensitizing, scaffolding collaboration, defining a design goal, reflection on collaboration, ideation, grouping and selection, elaboration through making, presentation and peer jury, iteration or wrap up |
Wendell, Wright, Paugh (2017) [62] | N/A | elementary school | 1 day | science | Reflective decision making: articulate multiple solutions, evaluate pros and cons, intentionally select solution, retell performance of solution, analyse solution according to specific evidence, purposefully choose improvements |
Won et al. (2015) [56] | 44 | middle school | N/A | STEM | Articulation of the learning phenomenon, design, data collection, actual construction, redesign |
Yalcin and Erden (2021) [29] | 39 | kindergarten | 8 weeks | STEM | Five stages used by the Hasso Platter Institute at Stanford: Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, Test |
Yu, Wu, Fan (2020) [26] | 613 | high school | 16 weeks | engineering | Observing, predicting, creating, analysing, and evaluating |
Zhang et al. (2022) [30] | 30 | middle school | 3 months | Design & Research | Empathize Design User (EDU), Define Design Problem (DDP), Ideate Design Solution (IDS), Make Prototype (MP), Test Prototype (TP) |
Zhou et al. (2017) [39] | 24 | middle school | 2 weeks | science and engineering | Nine coding categories: sketching, prototyping, design goals, inference/predictions about design, generate design ideas, design of structure, design of system/process, materials, and collaboration |
Zhou et al. (2021) [45] | 27 | middle school | 2 weeks | engineering | Design cycle of planning, building, and testing |
Zupan, Cankar, Cankar (2018) [66] | 146 | elementary school | 17.5 weeks | N/A | The process was divided into five interrelated phases: understanding and defining the problem, observation, ideation, prototyping and testing, implementation |
Paper | Course Type | Task/Challenge | Tools and Materials | Grouping | Study Design | Study Type | Dependent Variable | Measurement Instrument |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aflatoony, Wakkary, Neustaedter (2018) [33] | formal | To use design to change their communities | N/A | 3–4 | Non-experimental: design thinking based pedagogy in the context of interaction design | O X O | Design thinking | Observation, survey, portfolio |
Aranda, Lie, Guzey (2020) [54] | formal | Design a process to both prevent and test for cross-pollination of non-GMO fields from GMO fields. (Genetically Modified Organisms, GMOs) | N/A | 4 | Non-experimental: engineering design as a tool to improve student science learning | X O | Skill | Protocol analysis |
Blom and Bogaers (2020) [46] | N/A | Design a heat retaining food container for street food vendors at a taxi depot | Basic stationary items, including pens, pencils, safety rulers, post-it notes, coloured pencils, paper, paper clips, felt-tip pens and highlighters. | 3 | Non-experimental: STEM design task | X O | Design thinking | Protocol analysis, video recording |
Carroll et al. (2010) [38] | formal | To identify and redesign systems that existed at the school | N/A | 4–5 | Non-experimental: introducing students both to the design process and to systems in geography | X O | Design thinking, emotional/social aspect | Journal, audio recording, video recording, portfolio, interview |
Chin et al. (2019) [68] | formal | Design digital posters | Computer design games | 1 | Experimental: EG1: Feedback design-thinking strategies treatment; EG2: Explore design-thinking strategies treatment | R O X1 O R O X2 O | Design thinking | Test |
Christensen et al. (2019) [40] | formal | To create a secure environment for the elderly without taking away their freedom | Digital technology | N/A | Quasi-experimental: EG: students who had already received design education in their school (FabLab group); CG: without intervention | X1 O X2 O | Design thinking, emotional/social aspect | Questionnaire |
Cutumisu, Chin, Schwartz (2019) [60] | formal | Design digital posters | Computer design games | 1 | Non-experimental: digital poster design game (Posterlet) | X O | Design thinking, subject learning performance | Test, design work evaluation |
Cutumisu, Schwartz, Lou (2020) [65] | formal | Design digital posters | Computer design games | 1 | Non-experimental: digital poster design game (Posterlet) | O X O | Design thinking | Test |
Derler et al. (2020) [55] | formal | To develop sustainable food products for peer group | N/A | Group | Non-experimental: Project-Based Learning focused on the development of sustainable food products | X O | Design thinking | Portfolio, journal, survey, interview |
English (2019) [21] | formal | Design and construct shoes | N/A | 3 | Non-experimental: problem solving activities (shoes design) | X O | Design thinking | Portfolio, protocol analysis |
Fan, Yu, Lou (2018) [43] | formal | To design a movable toy with various mechanical structure types | Physical and 3D virtual simulation models, LEGO | N/A | Non-experimental: project-based engineering design program | O X O | Subject learning performance, design thinking, emotional/social aspect | Test, questionnaire, design work evaluation, survey, observation |
Fleer (2021) [64] | formal | Design castle according to an imaginary engineering situation of Sherwood forest | N/A | Individual and collective | Non-experimental: designerly play | X O | Design thinking | Observation |
Forbes et al. (2021) [27] | formal | 3D design and printing: Floatable boats, shadow puppets, Headphone cable holders, Spinning tops, Playground sculptures, Habitat for hermit crabs, Herb markers, Designing keyrings, Bag tags | 3D design and printing technologies (Ipad and 3D design software and print device) | N/A | Non-experimental: STEM-focussed curricula in 3D technology based makerspace | X O | Subject learning performance, design thinking, skill, emotional/social aspect | Interview, survey, journal, observation |
Gennari, Melonio, Rizvi (2021) [49] | N/A | Generate smart-things ideas for an outdoor park environment | Card-based toolkits, microelectronics components: Raspberry Pi, Google’s Design Sprint Kit | N/A | Non-experimental: IoT design workshop | X O | Design thinking, emotional/social aspect | Portfolio, questionnaire, observation, interview |
Gomoll et al. (2018) [61] | formal | Design a robot that served a need in their local environment and allowed remote peers to explore their local spaces | A mobile telepresence robot that we called KT, controlled over the Internet through a web interface | 4 | Non-experimental: human-centred robotics curriculum | X O | Design thinking | Portfolio, audio recording, video recording |
Guzey and Jung (2021) [34] | formal | Design a water filter system for the city’s wastewater management plant to help prevent the pollution of a local river | N/A | 3–4 | Non-experimental: engineering design task in teams | O X O | Skill, subject learning performance | Audio recording, protocol analysis, test |
Kelley and Sung (2017) [47] | formal | 3 engineering design activities: Musical Instrument, Simple Machines, and bio-inspired flower | N/A | 2–4 | Quasi-experimental: EG1: pretreatment on basic engineering design sketching strategies before the three design activities; EG2: delayed treatment before the third design activity | X1 O X2 O | Design thinking | Design work evaluation |
Kelley, Capobianco, Kaluf (2015) [59] | formal | To work in teams to build a prototype for a prosthetic leg to function like a human leg joint and strike the ball; paper football kicker | N/A | 3 | Non-experimental: engineering design activity | X O | Design thinking | Protocol analysis, video recording |
Kijima and Sun (2021) [32] | N/A | Work revolved around interviewing senior citizens and creating prototypes that met their needs on the background of Japan’s aging society | N/A | N/A | Non-experimental: design thinking workshop | O X O | Emotional/social aspect | Survey |
Kijima, Yang-Yoshihara, Maekawa (2021) [50] | N/A | Design local solutions addressing global issues | Using basic prototyping materials such as recycled plastic bottles and cardboards, glue, tapes, scissors, | 4 | Non-experimental: design thinking and STEAM workshop | O X O | Emotional/social aspect | Questionnaire, interview |
Kim, Seo, Kim, (2022) [52] | formal | Reading the narrative content of the books and solving the engineering problems presented in the books, and finally rewrite the story | COBL-S (Arduino Leonardo-based device, supported programming language was developed based on Scratch and app inventor) | 3–4 | Quasi-experimental: EG: Class activities according to the NE-Maker instructional model; CG: Normal software education class according to the textbook. | O X1 O O X2 O | Emotional/social aspect | Questionnaire, journal, interview |
Ladachart et al. (2021) [51] | formal | Reverse engineering project: to design a bimetal thermostat | A dissected bimetal thermostat, metal, tape, and scissors | 3 | Non-experimental: design-based reverse engineering | O X O | Emotional/social aspect | Questionnaire, video recording, protocol analysis |
Leinonen et al. (2020) [57] | formal | 3D model design and 3D artefact printing | 3D model design by Tinkercad software and 3D artefact printing by Ultimaker printer | group | Non-experimental: 3D design and printing activities | X O | Subject learning performance, skill, design thinking | Observation, interview, questionnaire, portfolio |
Lin et al. (2020) [48] | formal | Design digital documents for new year party (e.g., to make posters for party promotion) | WPS Writer® | group | Quasi-experiment: EG: using the design thinking approach (class a: project); CG: using traditional teaching methods (class b, according to the textbook) | O X1 O O X2 O | Subject learning performance | Design work evaluation |
Lin, Chang, Li (2020) [31] | formal | Design an electric model vehicle capable of automatically avoiding obstacles was developed | The experimental group experienced design teaching with VR devices used as teaching tools | N/A | Experimental: EG: engineering design teaching with VR CG: conventional engineering design teaching | R O X1 O R O X2 O | Design thinking | Survey, design work evaluation |
Marks and Chase (2019) [35] | formal | Drop challenge, playground challenge, and a post-design challenge (the boat challenge) | N/A | N/A | Experimental: EG: iterative prototyping (Prototype); CG: content-focused design (Content) | R O X1 O R O X2 O | Design thinking, emotional/social aspect | Test, survey, design work evaluation |
Marks and Chase (2019) [35] | formal | Base-line tower design task,drop challenge, playground challenge, and a post-design challenge (the boat challenge) | N/A | N/A | Experimental: EG: design thinking intervention focused on effective iterative prototyping (Prototype); CG: content-focused intervention (Content) | R O X1 O R O X2 O | Design thinking, emotional/social aspect | Test, survey, design work evaluation |
Mentzer, Becker, Sutton (2015) [42] | formal | To design a playground | A calculator, ruler, a small note pad, graph paper, white paper, pencil, highlighter, sticky notes, and a piece of paper identifying the design task were placed on the table before the student entered the room | N/A | Quasi-experimental: EG1: high school freshmen starting the sequence of engineering courses; EG2: high school seniors who had taken multiple engineering courses; CG: engineering experts | X1 O X2 O X3 O | Design thinking | Audio recording, video recording, protocol analysis, portfolio |
Mentzer, Huffman, Thayer (2014) [41] | formal | Playground design | N/A | 1 | Non-experimental: Engineering design challenge | X O | Design thinking, Emotional/social aspect | Observation, protocol Analysis, video recording, audio recording, portfolio, interview, survey |
Nichols et al. (2021) [36] | formal | To design and construct a device that is engineered to provide electricity to a third world community scenario | Materials like LED, water | 2–4 | Quasi-experimental: EG: design task embedded in an inquiry science unit and a community of inquiry (CoI); CG: design task embedded in an inquiry science unit (Non-CoI) | O X1 O O X2 O | Design thinking, subject learning performance | Protocol analysis, video recording, test, interview |
Parikh, Maddulety, Meadows (2020) [53] | informal | Design prototypes for solving a Design Thinking challenge | N/A | 5–6 | Quasi-experiment: EG: Design Thinking training spread over two action research cycles; CG: received no intervention | O X1 O X2 O O X3 O X4 O | Skill | Portfolio, test |
Rao, Puranam, Singh (2022) [23] | informal | Three key design thinking exercises: ’Bag Exercise’, ’Cartographer’, ‘Be a Detective’ | N/A | N/A | Experimental: EG: design thinking training programme; CG: usual hands-on science education curriculum | R X1 O R X2 O | Skill | Test |
Simeon, Samsudin, Yakob (2022) [37] | informal | Zip line delivery challenge,truss bridge challenge | N/A | N/A | Non-experimental: STEM- Design thinking modules | O X O | Subject learning performance | Test |
Sung and Kelley (2019) [44] | formal | Design a Doggie Door Alarm | Normal design tools, such as paper, pencil | 3 | Non-experimental: engineering design activity for science learning | X O | Design thinking | Audio recording, video recording, protocol analysis |
Tsai and Wang (2021) [28] | formal | Design a robot for solving some problems related to natural science or ecological environmental issues | N/A | N/A | Non-experimental: project-based STEAM curriculum | X O | Emotional/social aspect | Questionnaire |
Van Mechelen et al. (2019) [58] | formal | The design theme on preventing bullying in the social context of the class | N/A | 4–6 | Non-experimental: design activities on the theme of preventing bullying in the social context of the class | X O | Emotional/social aspect, design thinking | Observation, portfolio, design work evaluation |
Wendell, Wright, Paugh (2017) [62] | formal | Design water filters, bridges, circuits in, maglev vehicles and windmills, and pollinators and knee braces | N/A | 2–3 | Non-experimental: engineering design tasks | X O | Design thinking | Video recording, portfolio, protocol analysis |
Won et al. (2015) [56] | informal | Design of lights powered through motion | Social media technologies | N/A | Non-experimental: integrating learning technologies such as social networking forum (SNF) into design-based learning activities | X O | Design thinking | Survey, portfolio |
Yalcin and Erden (2021) [29] | formal | Design thinking STEM activities | N/A | 4 | Experimental: EG: design thinking STEM activities CG: non-STEM activities | R O X1 O R O X2 O | Skill | Survey, journal |
Yu, Wu, Fan (2020) [26] | formal | Design mechanical toy | The design stage used computer-aided design to create a three-dimensional model of the toy | N/A | Non-experimental: engineering project | X O | Subject learning performance, design thinking, skill | Questionnaire, design work evaluation, portfolio |
Zhang et al. (2022) [30] | formal | Design an escape room for the local fire department to allow participants to playfully and interactively improve awareness of fire safety in and around the house | N/A | 3–4 | Non-experimental: DBL (design-based learning) activities | X O | Design thinking, emotional/social aspect | Questionnaire, observation, interview |
Zhou et al. (2017) [39] | informal | A total of five toy design activities | N/A | 3–4 | Non-experimental: toy design workshop | O X O | Emotional/social aspect, design thinking | Questionnaire, survey |
Zhou et al. (2021) [45] | informal | Marshmallow tower activity and the trebuchet design activity | N/A | 3–4 | Non-experimental: design workshop | X O | Design thinking | Observation, design work evaluation |
Zupan, Cankar, Cankar (2018) [66] | formal | Identify and define a local or social problem that could be solved with a new product, service, or other solution | N/A | N/A | Non-experimental: use the design thinking method to develop the entrepreneurial mindset | X O | Emotional/social aspect | Interview, observation |
References
- Kimbell, L. Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I. Des. Cult. 2011, 3, 285–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Micheli, P.; Wilner, S.J.; Bhatti, S.H.; Mura, M.; Beverland, M.B. Doing design thinking: Conceptual review, synthesis, and research agenda. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2019, 36, 124–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simon, H.A. The Sciences of the Artificial; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1969. [Google Scholar]
- Cross, N. Expertise in design: An overview. Des. Stud. 2004, 25, 427–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jonassen, D.H. Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2000, 48, 63–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dorst, K. The core of ‘design thinking’and its application. Des. Stud. 2011, 32, 521–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, T. Design thinking. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2008, 86, 84–92. Available online: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18605031/ (accessed on 9 June 2022).
- Kelley, T.; Kelley, D. Creative Confidence: Unleashing the Creative Potential Within Us All; Crown Business: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Martin, R.; Martin, R.L. The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage; Harvard Business Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Brenner, W.; Uebernickel, F.; Abrell, T. Design thinking as mindset, process, and toolbox. In Design Thinking for Innovation; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2016; pp. 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rusmann, A.; Ejsing-Duun, S. When design thinking goes to school: A literature review of design competences for the K-12 level. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, F.; Markopoulos, P.; Bekker, T. Children’s Emotions in Design-Based Learning: A Systematic Review. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2020, 29, 459–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, D.; Gomez, R.; Wright, N.; Rittenbruch, M.; Davis, J. A design-led conceptual framework for developing school integrated STEM programs: The Australian context. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2020, 32, 383–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy: The Role of Technology and Engineering in STEM Education. Available online: https://www.iteea.org/STEL.aspx (accessed on 9 June 2022).
- Johansson-Sköldberg, U.; Woodilla, J.; Çetinkaya, M. Design thinking: Past, present and possible futures. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2013, 22, 121–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Razzouk, R.; Shute, V. What is design thinking and why is it important? Rev. Educ. Res. 2012, 82, 330–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford University. Design Thinking Bootleg. Available online: https://dschool.stanford.edu/resources/design-thinking-bootleg (accessed on 9 June 2022).
- IDEO. Design Thinking for Educators Toolkit (2nd ed.). Available online: https://designthinkingforeducators.com/toolkit/ (accessed on 9 June 2022).
- Design Council. The Double Diamond: A Universally Accepted Depiction of the Design Process. Available online: https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-work/news-opinion/double-diamond-universally-accepted-depiction-design-process/ (accessed on 9 June 2022).
- Burghardt, M.D.; Hacker, M. Informed design: A contemporary approach to design pedagogy as the core process in technology. Technol. Teach. 2004, 64, 6–8. [Google Scholar]
- English, L.D. Learning while designing in a fourth-grade integrated STEM problem. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2018, 29, 1011–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chase, C.C.; Malkiewich, L.; Kumar, A.S. Learning to notice science concepts in engineering activities and transfer situations. Sci. Educ. 2018, 103, 440–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rao, H.; Puranam, P.; Singh, J. Does design thinking training increase creativity? Results from a field experiment with middle-school students. Innovation 2021, 24, 315–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tranfield, D.; Denyer, D.; Smart, P. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. Br. J. Manag. 2003, 14, 207–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wohlin, C. Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 18th international conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering, London, UK, 13 May 2014; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, K.C.; Wu, P.H.; Fan, S.C. Structural Relationships among High School Students’ Scientific Knowledge, Critical Thinking, Engineering Design Process, and Design Product. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2020, 18, 1001–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forbes, A.; Falloon, G.; Stevenson, M.; Hatzigianni, M.; Bower, M. An Analysis of the Nature of Young Students’ STEM Learning in 3D Technology-Enhanced Makerspaces. Early Educ. Dev. 2020, 32, 172–187. [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]
- Yalcin, V.; Erden, S. The Effect of STEM Activities Prepared According to the Design Thinking Model on Preschool Children’s Creativity and Problem-Solving Skills. Think. Ski. Creat. 2021, 41, 100864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, F.; Markopoulos, P.; Bekker, T.; Paule-Ruíz, M.; Schüll, M. Understanding design-based learning context and the associated emotional experience. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2020, 32, 845–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, H.-C.; Chang, Y.-S.; Li, W.-H. Effects of a virtual reality teaching application on engineering design creativity of boys and girls. Think. Ski. Creat. 2020, 37, 100705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kijima, R.; Sun, K.L. ‘Females Don’t Need to be Reluctant’: Employing Design Thinking to Harness Creative Confidence and Interest in STEAM. Int. J. Art Des. Educ. 2020, 40, 66–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aflatoony, L.; Wakkary, R.; Neustaedter, C. Becoming a Design Thinker: Assessing the Learning Process of Students in a Secondary Level Design Thinking Course. Int. J. Art Des. Educ. 2017, 37, 438–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guzey, S.S.; Jung, J.Y. Productive Thinking and Science Learning in Design Teams. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2021, 19, 215–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marks, J.; Chase, C.C. Impact of a prototyping intervention on middle school students’ iterative practices and reactions to failure. J. Eng. Educ. 2019, 108, 547–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nichols, K.; Musofer, R.; Fynes-Clinton, L.; Blundell, R. Design thinking and inquiry behaviours are co-constituted in a community of inquiry middle years’ science classroom context: Empirical evidence for design thinking and pragmatist inquiry interconnections. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simeon, M.I.; Samsudin, M.A.; Yakob, N. Effect of design thinking approach on students’ achievement in some selected physics concepts in the context of STEM learning. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2020, 32, 185–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carroll, M.; Goldman, S.; Britos, L.; Koh, J.; Royalty, A.; Hornstein, M. Destination, Imagination and the Fires Within: Design Thinking in a Middle School Classroom. Int. J. Art Des. Educ. 2010, 29, 37–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, N.; Pereira, N.; George, T.T.; Alperovich, J.; Booth, J.; Chandrasegaran, S.; Tew, J.D.; Kulkarni, D.M.; Ramani, K. The Influence of Toy Design Activities on Middle School Students’ Understanding of the Engineering Design Processes. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2017, 26, 481–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christensen, K.S.; Hjorth, M.; Iversen, O.S.; Smith, R.C. Understanding design literacy in middle-school education: Assessing students’ stances towards inquiry. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2018, 29, 633–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mentzer, N.; Huffman, T.; Thayer, H. High school student modeling in the engineering design process. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2014, 24, 293–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mentzer, N.; Becker, K.; Sutton, M. Engineering Design Thinking: High School Students’ Performance and Knowledge. J. Eng. Educ. 2015, 104, 417–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, S.C.; Yu, K.C.; Lou, S.J. Why do students present different design objectives in engineering design projects? Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2018, 28, 1039–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sung, E.; Kelley, T.R. Identifying design process patterns: A sequential analysis study of design thinking. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2018, 29, 283–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, N.; Pereira, N.; Chandrasegaran, S.; George, T.T.; Booth, J.; Ramani, K. Examining Middle School Students’ Engineering Design Processes in a Design Workshop. Res. Sci. Educ. 2019, 51 (Suppl. 2), 617–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blom, N.; Bogaers, A. Using Linkography to investigate students’ thinking and information use during a STEM task. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2018, 30, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelley, T.R.; Sung, E. Sketching by design: Teaching sketching to young learners. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2017, 27, 363–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, L.; Shadiev, R.; Hwang, W.-Y.; Shen, S. From knowledge and skills to digital works: An application of design thinking in the information technology course. Think. Ski. Creat. 2020, 36, 100646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gennari, R.; Melonio, A.; Rizvi, M. From children’s ideas to prototypes for the internet of things: A case study of cross-generational end-user design. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kijima, R.; Yang-Yoshihara, M.; Maekawa, M.S. Using design thinking to cultivate the next generation of female STEAM thinkers. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2021, 8, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ladachart, L.; Cholsin, J.; Kwanpet, S.; Teerapanpong, R.; Dessi, A.; Phuangsuwan, L.; Phothong, W. Ninth-grade students’ perceptions on the design-thinking mindset in the context of reverse engineering. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2021. [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.-Y.; Seo, J.S.; Kim, K. Development of novel-engineering-based maker education instructional model. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2022, 27, 7327–7371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parikh, C.; Maddulety, K.; Meadows, C. Improving creative ability of base of pyramid (BOP) students in India. Think. Ski. Creativity 2020, 36, 100652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aranda, M.L.; Lie, R.; Guzey, S.S. Productive thinking in middle school science students’ design conversations in a design-based engineering challenge. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2019, 30, 67–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Derler, H.; Berner, S.; Grach, D.; Posch, A.; Seebacher, U. Project-Based Learning in a Transinstitutional Research Setting: Case Study on the Development of Sustainable Food Products. Sustainability 2019, 12, 233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Won, S.G.; Evans, M.A.; Carey, C.; Schnittka, C.G. Youth appropriation of social media for collaborative and facilitated design-based learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 50, 385–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leinonen, T.; Virnes, M.; Hietala, I.; Brinck, J. 3D Printing in the Wild: Adopting Digital Fabrication in Elementary School Education. Int. J. Art Des. Educ. 2020, 39, 600–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Mechelen, M.; Laenen, A.; Zaman, B.; Willems, B.; Abeele, V.V. Collaborative Design Thinking (CoDeT): A co-design approach for high child-to-adult ratios. Int. J. Human-Computer Stud. 2019, 130, 179–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelley, T.R.; Capobianco, B.M.; Kaluf, K.J. Concurrent think-aloud protocols to assess elementary design students. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2014, 25, 521–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cutumisu, M.; Chin, D.B.; Schwartz, D.L. A digital game-based assessment of middle-school and college students’ choices to seek critical feedback and to revise. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2019, 50, 2977–3003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gomoll, A.; Tolar, E.; Hmelo-Silver, C.E.; Šabanović, S. Designing human-centered robots: The role of constructive failure. Think. Ski. Creat. 2018, 30, 90–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wendell, K.B.; Wright, C.G.; Paugh, P. Reflective Decision-Making in Elementary Students’ Engineering Design. J. Eng. Educ. 2017, 106, 356–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trochim, W.M.K.; Donnelly, J.P. Research Methods Knowledge Base (3rd ed.). Available online: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/ (accessed on 9 June 2022).
- Fleer, M. The genesis of design: Learning about design, learning through design to learning design in play. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2022, 32, 1441–1468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cutumisu, M.; Schwartz, D.L.; Lou, N.M. The relation between academic achievement and the spontaneous use of design-thinking strategies. Comput. Educ. 2020, 149, 103806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zupan, B.; Cankar, F.; Cankar, S.S. The development of an entrepreneurial mindset in primary education. Eur. J. Educ. 2018, 53, 427–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buchanan, R. Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Des. Issues 1992, 8, 5–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chin, D.B.; Blair, K.P.; Wolf, R.C.; Conlin, L.D.; Cutumisu, M.; Pfaffman, J.; Schwartz, D.L. Educating and Measuring Choice: A Test of the Transfer of Design Thinking in Problem Solving and Learning. J. Learn. Sci. 2019, 28, 337–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Csikszentmihalyi, M. Good Business: Leadership, Flow, and the Making of Meaning; Viking: New York, NY, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Wells, A. The importance of design thinking for technological literacy: A phenomenological perspective. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2012, 23, 623–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Technology Education Association. Standards for Technological Literacy. Content for the Study of Technology (3rd ed.). Available online: https://www.iteea.org/42511.aspx (accessed on 9 June 2022).
- Laal, M.; Ghodsi, S.M. Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 31, 486–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Q.; Lu, J.; Yu, M.; Lin, Z.; Zhan, Z. Teaching Design Thinking in a C-STEAM Project: A Case Study of developing the Wooden Arch Bridges’ Intelligent Monitoring system. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on E-Education, E-Business, E-Management, and E-Learning (IC4E), Tokyo, Japan, 14–17 January 2022; pp. 280–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Bono, E. New Thinking for the New Millennium; Viking Adult: New York, NY, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Australian Curriculum, Assessment, and Reporting Authority. The Australian Curriculum: Technology. Available online: https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/umbraco/Surface/Download/Pdf?subject=Digital%20Technologies&type=F10 (accessed on 9 June 2022).
- Australian Curriculum, Assessment, and Reporting Authority. ACARA STEM Connections Project Report. Available online: https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/media/3220/stem-connections-report.pdf (accessed on 9 June 2022).
- Peron, M.; Alfnes, E.; Sgarbossa, F. Learning Through Action: On the Use of Logistics4.0 Lab as Learning Developer. In Proceedings of the 7th European Lean Educator Conference, ELEC 2021, Online, 25–27 October 2021; Powell, D.J., Alfnes, E., Holmemo, M.D., Reke, E., Eds.; Springer: Trondheim, Norway, 2021; Volume 610, pp. 205–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhan, Z.; Zhong, B.; Shi, X.; Si, Q.; Zheng, J. The design and application of IRobotQ3D for simulating robotics experiments in K-12 education. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2021, 30, 532–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simonetto, M.; Arena, S.; Peron, M. A methodological framework to integrate motion capture system and virtual reality for assembly system 4.0 workplace design. Saf. Sci. 2021, 146, 105561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlgren, L.; Rauth, I.; Elmquist, M. Framing Design Thinking: The Concept in Idea and Enactment. Creativity Innov. Manag. 2016, 25, 38–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buchanan, R. Human Dignity and Human Rights: Thoughts on the Principles of Human-Centered Design. Des. Issues 2001, 17, 35–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, L.; Xiaoying, M.; Jian, L.; Rui, W.; Lihong, M.; Guanxing, X.; Qiuling, G. Cultural Competence: Part I of the 5Cs Framework forTwenty-first Century Key Competences. J. East China Norm. Univ. Educ. Sci. 2020, 38, 29–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Selection Strategy | Papers Resulting from the Search | Selected |
---|---|---|
Keyword search | 99 | 27 |
First-round snowballing approach | 1721 | 12 |
Second-round snowballing approach | 826 | 3 |
Third-round snowballing approach | 186 | 1 |
Fourth-round snowballing approach | 37 | 0 |
Total | 2869 | 43 |
Design Thinking Competence | Frequency in the Data Set | Codes | Explanation |
---|---|---|---|
Prototype | 32 | Prototype Modelling Build Create Make Fabrication | Creating the original or early solution model, it can be a sketch, or other physical or virtual structure that designed. |
Ideate | 31 | Ideate Design Brainstorming develop possible solutions | Generating alternative ideas that may lead to solutions. |
Define | 18 | Define Understand Problem definition Identify problem Clarify problems and constraints | Actionable problem statement based on insights into the problem situation. |
Test | 15 | Test | Experimenting and gathering feedbacks. |
Explore | 14 | Explore Collect information Data collection Discovery Field Studies Observe | Questioning and collecting information to gain deep understanding of the problem. |
Empathize | 13 | Empathize Human-centeredness Needs-finding Sensitizing Feel | Carrying out design around the needs of users, highlighting human-centred design. |
Evaluate | 9 | Evaluating Appraising | Checking if the design meets the user’s needs. |
Optimize | 8 | Optimization Improve Evolution Iteration Redesign | Refining solution based on user’s feedbacks. |
Dependent Variables | Construct |
---|---|
Subject learning performance | Subject concept |
Subject skill | |
Design thinking | Design thinking concept |
Design thinking process | |
Design thinking work | |
Emotional/social aspect | Attitude |
Interest | |
Satisfaction | |
Desire | |
Acceptance | |
collaboration | |
Skill | Creativity |
Critical thinking | |
Problem solving | |
Productive thinking |
Measurement Instrument | Explanation and Examples |
---|---|
Survey/Questionnaire | Surveys or questionnaires are often used for investigating skills or emotional/social dispositions towards DTIL (e.g., [27,32,35,55,56]). |
Portfolio | Collecting and evaluating students’ design products purposefully and systematically (e.g., [26,33,52]). |
Interview | Researcher adopted interview to probe participants’ understanding of DTIL (e.g., [30,41,57]). |
Observation | Observation is usually employed to explore participants’ procedural performance in greater detail (e.g., [33,41,58]). |
Protocol analysis | Protocol analysis is often adopted to understand the thought process of individual or groups in a natural way, the object of its analysis includes the coded verbal communication, or the thought process being asked to speak out (e.g., [41,46,59]). |
Test | To estimate students’ mastery of relevant knowledge, test or examination is usually adopted (e.g., [23,35,43,60]). |
Design work evaluation | Design work is seen as a direct way to reflect students’ learning outcome, and it is widely implemented in the evaluation of DTIL (e.g., [31,35,48]). |
Video recording/Audio recording | In DTIL, researcher recorded the design activities by video or audio so that to understand the participants’ learning process more fully (e.g., [38,44,61,62]). |
Journal | Journals or diaries from participants is analysed to help understand the process by which learning occurs (e.g., [27,29,38]). |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 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
Li, T.; Zhan, Z. A Systematic Review on Design Thinking Integrated Learning in K-12 Education. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8077. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12168077
Li T, Zhan Z. A Systematic Review on Design Thinking Integrated Learning in K-12 Education. Applied Sciences. 2022; 12(16):8077. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12168077
Chicago/Turabian StyleLi, Tingting, and Zehui Zhan. 2022. "A Systematic Review on Design Thinking Integrated Learning in K-12 Education" Applied Sciences 12, no. 16: 8077. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12168077