The Needs of Design Thinking Practices among D&T Students Based on Teachers Perspective: A Qualitative Approach
Mohd Ridzuan Padzil1*, Aidah Abd Karim1, Hazrati Husnin1
1 Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
*Corresponding Author: [email protected]
Accepted: 15 March 2022 | Published: 1 April 2022
DOI:https://doi.org/10.55057/ajress.2022.4.1.23
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: Thinking skills are one of the six main aspirations of the Malaysian Education Development Plan to provide students with intellectual abilities, including critical, creative, logical and metacognitive thinking. Design thinking is an essential element in thinking skills, especially education today because it can help increase the creativity and innovation to solve a problem. Subjects such as Design and Technology and Reka Cipta are significant transformations in ensuring that students master theory, practical skills, and creative and critical thinking. Hence, this study explores the need to apply design thinking for Design and Technology subjects based on the teacher’s perspective? In this qualitative study, four D&T teachers in Sepang, Selangor, were selected as study participants using purposive sampling.
Data were obtained through semi-structured interviews and analyzed using thematic analysis.
The conclusions supported researchers to identify the problems and the need to apply design thinking in the teaching and learning process of D&T in secondary schools. Through data analysis, three principal themes were formed to explain the study's results in detail. Teachers were aware that the transformation of education and the application of design thinking could positively influence student development, particularly in terms of improving 21st-century skills, enhancing student understanding, designing a fun learning atmosphere, and applying elements across the curriculum.
Keywords: Design Thinking, Design and Technology Principles, Qualitative, Need Analysis ___________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
The impact of globalization is not a new thing in the development of the 21st century; it is an essential essence for a country due to its ability to change the world system seems small in terms of human relations due to the speed of information technology. The impact of human capital development in globalization can be achieved through the quality of the education system and driven by various factors such as the development of science and technology, K- economy, political aspirations, national economy, international influence, community demand and evolution of thinking in various fields (Pati Anak Aleng, 2016; NurulRabihah Mat Noh, 2020). An education system that is relevant and in line with the needs of the time will positively impact and produce students who have high-level thinking skills and abilities to face the wave of global change of the 21st century (Mohd Rosdi, Abdul Kadir, & Nazri, 2018).
In Malaysia, to satisfy the necessities of thinking in today’s more demanding circumstances, applying high-level thinking skills among students is a government’s endeavour as a part of the strategy of national economic growth activities or Key Economic Growth Activities
(KEGA). It is evident through government policy in the third and fourth thrusts of KEGA to prepare for the phenomenon of globalization based on knowledge, the digital revolution and artificial intelligence in developments throughout the Industrial Revolution 4.0 and the Content Industry (Kementerian Hal Ehwal Ekonomi, 2019). The prowess of diverse knowledge and cognitive skills, covering problem-solving skills, reasoning, creative and innovative thinking, should be employed and set in the identity of each student. These skills are vital to prepare students who are always ready to handle increasingly intricate, fast-paced and taxing hurdles now and in the future. Statistics reveal that 72.8% of the country’s labour market for low- skilled and semi-skilled labour is still dependent on the skills of foreign workers, due to a 21st- century skills gap among students on skills and knowledge. A study by Triling & Fadel (2009) states seven basic skills needed in the 21st century: problem-solving, critical thinking, oral and written communication, professional work ethic, teamwork, multi-team work, use of technology, leadership, and project management. However, the study also found that these skills are poorly applied among students at the secondary and tertiary levels. Even so, the world of work today requires employees who have a network of knowledge, skills and competencies in line with the needs of the 21st century (NurulRabihah Mat Noh, 2020; Wagner, 2008;
Gardner 2007) that calls for every student to be equipped not only with academic expertise but also 21st-century skills that originate in nature (Scheer, Noweski, & Meinel, 2013). Hence, design thinking needs to be applied to fill this gap, especially in STEM education. This argument is based on Carroll et al. (2010) statement that design thinking is a skill that can lay a solid foundation for students to face current and future challenges and help increase student's creativity and innovation to solve problems (Li et al., 2019). Lack of these skills leads to behaviour that hinders a person from applying skills or expertise to deliver a product or design.
Innovative features in design thinking combine good imagination, sound decision-making, and acceptance of new or novel conditions (Stenberg 1995; Kadir, Nordin, & Iksan, 2017). As suggested by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, formal design thinking should be taught that the 21st-century generation needs to possess creativity, critical thinking skills, and competence in information and science technology skills. Further, design thinking can inspire creativity toward aspirations, actions, and purposes around real-world concerns (Collins, A., Joseph, D.,
& Bielaczyc, 2004; Ronen-Fuhrmann, Kali, & Hoadley, 2008). Thus, design thinking is a solution to creative problems using a human-centred thinking approach extensively utilized in several domains such as medicine, engineering, education and others.
The Ministry Of Education (MOE) has set a target of 60:40 science students compared to literature or social science school level and institutions of higher learning. However, the past research findings show that students taking STEM subjects are declining. The Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) 2018 examination found that there was a sharp decrease in some STEM subjects such as subjects related to technology or engineering, which showed a decrease of 78% of candidates who sat for papers such as Engineering Drawing, which was 1,928 candidates in 2018 compared to 8,854 candidates in 2017. This decline will affect the 21st- century skills gap and hamper the production of skilled and semi-skilled human resources such as engineers, technicians, architects, scientists and researchers. Suppose this situation is not addressed immediately by the authorities. In that case, it is feared that it will stifle the country's aspiration to become a developed country and achieve shared prosperity by 2030, which sets an increase of 35% of highly skilled workers in local and Bumiputera employment in management and professionals and turn will harm the development of human capital as well as the national economy.
Ironically it is undeniable that today’s world of work requires a set of skills and competencies that meet the requirements of 21st-century civilization (Bellanca et al., 2010; Binder et al.,
2011; Saari et al., 2021), i.e. every student needs to be equipped not only with the academic knowledge but also 21st-century skills starting from the school world again (Scheer, Noweski,
& Meinel, 2012). In addition, Henriksen, Richardson, & Mehta (2017) also stated that designing is a creative process to develop something that does not yet exist. Whereas Cross (2011) and Weisman (2012) state that design thinking is between two intersections of art and science and is used in various fields of human-centred knowledge through creative work. In other words, the application of this design thinking can provide flexible support to students and a foundation to the unmatched creative arena (Ronen-Fuhrmann et al., 2008).
2. Literature Review
2.1 Design Thinking
Design thinking is an important element in education today, especially STEM education, because it can help increase creativity and innovation to solve a problem (Li et al., 2019). Lack of these skills is described as a behavior that lacks a person to apply skills or abilities to produce a product or design. Creative traits in design thinking include good imagination, good decision- makers, and acceptance of new or novel situations (Stenberg 1995; Kadir et al., 2017).
Emphasis and application of formal design thinking should be taught in schools as stated by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad; the 21st-century generation needs to have creative and critical thinking and be rich in information and skills in Science and Technology (Sachi 2004). This effort should be applied from the early stages of schooling to encourage students to master design thinking skills. When there is this awareness and cultivating in the environment such as family, society, education, and culture, fostering creativity in society will increase (Said &
Yunus, 2008). Moreover, design thinking can drive creativity toward goals, actions, and purposes around real-world issues(Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, 2004; Ronen- Fuhrmann et al., 2008). This puts design thinking as a solution to creative problems by using a human-centred approach that is now increasingly widely used in various professions such as medicine, engineering, education and others.
2.1.1 Design Thinking in Education
Design thinking is a cognitive process in design (Cross, 2011) and problem-solving methodologies with innovative manoeuvrings and ideas to satisfy human needs implemented with technology (Henriksen et al., 2017). This thinking is a solid formal method of solving dilemmas creatively and competently. This strategy also practices a student-centred approach as a thought process to promote empathy and character development of students as creative and innovative people (Rowland 2004; Chai et al. 2015). Adapting these skills becomes part of the interest in the industrial and commercial areas. These fields necessitate workers who can resolve problems that overlap multiple fields, discover and assign new issues (Cook & Bush, 2018; Toshiaki Kurokawa, 2013). The research of design thinking in Asia emerged in late 2010 by developed countries such as Singapore and Korea in the face of barriers and struggles in running the economy. Countries in the Asia Pacific region such as China, South Korea, and India also promoted design thinking in university education through cultivating design thinking (Toshiaki Kurokawa, 2013). Besides, Denmark also combined design thinking with a social science approach to building an innovative answer for society (Kimbell, 2011). This proves that the adaptation of design thinking in teaching and learning sessions can create a link between the education system and industry as these skills are important and need to be mastered by students to meet future industry needs (Cook and Bush, 2018).
Although design thinking is one of the ingredients in social and economic growth, past studies reported that design thinking and creativity among students in schools were low and moderate
(Mustafa 2017; NurulRabihah Mat Noh 2020). Meantime, the study findings by Tuan Rahayu Tuan Lasan, Mohd Aderi Che Noh, & Mohd Isa Hamzah (2017) recorded that students were incapable of describing ideas critically. The empirical evidence presented here confirmed that students have problems parsing ideas due to idea deadlock. The fact is that the deadlock of ideas originates from the struggle of the mind to form ideas critically and creatively. It proved that design thinking could help overcome the problems as discussed in the preceding paragraph.
The UNESCO Agenda 2030, which fixes creativity and innovation as the core to sustainable advancement (United Nations Education Science and Culture Organization 2016), highlights vital economics, technology and society due to the emergence of a digital economy that encompasses innovation skills, creativity and inventors (Athanassios & Vasiliki, 2019). The interests of the 21st-century industry in the Industrial Revolution 4.0 focuses on students whose theoretical mastery and practical skills alone are inadequate to thrive as workers in the 21st century (Ismail 2012; Lynch et al.. Thus, theoretical knowledge alone is insufficient to make students competent and competitive. Students also need to have high skills, particularly practical or hands-on skills and problem-solving, creative thinking, written and oral communication and teamwork (Lynch et al., 2019). Accordingly, subjects such as Design and Technology and Invention under the STEM unit are a requisite transformation in ensuring that students master theory, practical skills, and creative and critical thinking.
2.2 Design and Technology
The term Design and Technology (DES 1988b; 1989), known initially as Craft, Design and Technology (EM and YFA, 1985), is used worldwide to describe similarities and differences in nature. It is one of the newest subjects in the school curriculum known by various names worldwide (Tortochot, 2017). For example, Technology in Scotland, South Africa; Design and Technology in England and Wales and Technology and Design in Northern Ireland. The term
‘Design and Technology was first introduced from the first Interim Report published by the National Curriculum Council (DES/WO 1988) in defining the subject and its program of study.
The report also states that the need for Design and Technology subjects introduced will enable students to develop their ability to imagine, make decisions, develop models, and assess a problem to be solved (Owen-Jackson, 2007).
In England and Wales, design and technology subjects became part of the National Curriculum in England (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 1999) starting in 1990 for children aged 5 to 16 years. In Scotland, this technology subject was introduced in 1996 for children aged 5 to 14 years. These subjects are built based on the skills and knowledge that have been learned to plan and develop products to solve problems and relevant in different contexts while considering the needs and wants of customers or users. Through this subject, students can develop their abilities through analysis, development and evaluation of products, development of their knowledge and practical skills as they work with various environmental problems, tools, equipment and even materials. In addition, the implementation of this curriculum also helps prepare young people to live and work in the world of technology by understanding and mastering the technical skills, design methods, and decision skills needed to produce practical solutions to real problems.
According to the Association of Design and Technology (1995), implementing technological design transformation in education is necessary because it involves various special creative processes that combine various intellectual and practical skills such as (i) Researching design needs or opportunities.; (ii) Develop design proposals, and modify them based on evaluations;
(iii) Plan the implementation of design solutions; (iv) Make a proposed solution, and (v) Evaluate the effectiveness of the processes they go through and the products they create.
In Malaysia, Design and Technology Principles or Reka Bentuk dan Teknologi (RBT), is a transformation in the education policy from the Kurikulum Bersepadu Sekolah Menengah (KBSM) to the Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Menengah (KSSM). The course was offered in the secondary school syllabus in 2017 to equip students with creative thinking and blend state- of-the-art technology in problem-solving. Furthermore, D&T was introduced to develop or produce high-quality, marketable products (Malaysia Education Blueprint, 2013).
Nevertheless, a past study discovered some constraints or issues that need to be addressed and resolved to improve the quality and effectiveness of D&T learning in secondary schools (Sahaat & Nasri, 2020; Unit Penyelidikan dan Pentaksiran Sekolah, 2019), as shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Issues and challenges Issues And
Challenges
Findings Student
Readiness
• Students are still weak in the process of creative idea development and design project development.
• Student readiness for the low design project development due to lack of exposure to practice basic (practical) skills such as measuring and marking, cutting, stitching and basic soldering
• Poor basic design knowledge. Lack of knowledge and necessary skills of craftsmanship.
Planning on 21st-century teaching and learning strategies for D&T subjects must be examined and realized to address the suggested issues. This approach assists students and enhances teacher’s pedagogical skills. Additionally, teacher pedagogical approaches should diversify concerning applying the latest technology. It embraces planning activities, attending research, analyzing data, and communicating the information obtained (Yata, Ohtani, & Isobe, 2020).
Furthermore, this approach can also address the time constraints and shortage of D&T teachers’
teaching resources.
Based on the need to adapt design thinking in education, it is quintessential to look systematically at the professional development of teachers in designing. Nonetheless, applying design thinking in the teaching and learning process is an indispensable enigma of scholars that contributes to the gap between theory and practice (Chai et al., 2015). A study was conducted to understand teachers’ awareness and pedagogical ability to adopt design thinking in teaching and learning in this setting. Accordingly, it confirmed that teachers were still uncertain about design thinking and how classroom conditions should look (Kimbell, 2011).
Although design thinking has proven too positively affect student development, research in Malaysia, especially secondary schools, is seen very little compared to research at the university or industry level. Research on design thinking is primarily concentrated in western countries and only a few studies in Asia(Koh, Chai, Benjamin, & Hong, 2015). Although many are implemented in western countries, they cannot give an accurate picture of the application of design thinking in the education system in Malaysia. This is because their context and culture are different from the people of this country, and they are still new to explore, and research needs to be done to see the need for the application of design thinking in the school environment (Benson & Dresdow, 2014; Koh, Chai, Wong, & Hong, 2015; Noh, Siraj, Halili, Jamil, &
Husin, 2019). There are also some suggestions for specific studies to be conducted on the
application of design thinking according to educational standards implicitly and explicitly so that teachers and students achieve a basic understanding of the design process more clearly (Henriksen et al., 2017; Kwek, 2011; Rossi de Campos, 2015).
In addition, Kimbell et al. (1996) also believe that learning design and technology will allow students to explore the real world uniquely, and this process requires students to engage directly with challenging activities in order to apply thinking skills and deal with them creatively and effectively (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority 1999; Owen Jackson 2007). Thus, this research endeavoured to explore the need to adopt design thinking practices among students for Design and Technology Principles based on the teacher’s perspective.
3. Methodology
3.1 Research Method
This research used qualitative methods to collect evidence or information to answer research questions related to teachers’ perspectives on applying design thinking among D&T students.
Qualitative data obtained would provide a comprehensive picture of the phenomena studied (Merriam 2002). This study employed semi-structured interviews to explore teachers’
perspectives on applying design thinking for D&T subjects. This technique was used to help researchers explore the data in detail (Seidman, 2006), and the use of questions in the interview protocol could ensure that all vital information could be obtained and meet research objectives (Seidman, 2006). In addition, the method used also provided an opportunity for study participants to express their opinions broadly, and the results of the data obtained were reliable (Cohen 2008).
Participants
In this investigation, purposive sampling techniques were used to obtain information and identify the development of current phenomena at the study site (Creswell 2013; Silverman 2002). The study participants were selected based on the context studied problems (Alias et al., 2014; Kadir et al., 2017; Siraj, Alias, DeWitt, Zaharah, & Mohd Ridhuan, 2013). Therefore, after obtaining permission from the Education Planning and Research Division (EPRD) and the schools involved, four D&T teachers from secondary schools around the District of Sepang, Selangor, were selected as study participants. The teacher criteria were teachers with at least three years of teaching experience for D&T subjects and more than five years for KHB subjects.
This selection also refers to the statement of Merriam and Tisdell (2016) that for a researcher to know, understand, and obtain clear information about a phenomenon at a study location, it is necessary to obtain such information from the most studied person. Also, Krohn and Krohn (2011) asserted that students, teachers, and students are the primary sources for obtaining information in the needs analysis phase.
Instrument
Semi-structured interviews are an appropriate and frequently used method of obtaining accurate data based on desired issues (Merriam 1998; 2002; 2009). This method can also determine the participants' behaviour, feelings, or perception of the issues studied (Merriam 1998). A semi-structured interview protocol (see Appendix for interview protocol) was used as an instrument to explore the need to apply design thinking in D&T. This interview protocol was constructed from literature highlights and also adapted from interview protocols by previous researchers. The interview protocol questions focused on the need to apply design thinking in teaching and learning activities and the use of ICT in the teaching and learning of D&T.
Validity and Reliability
The evaluation process of the interview protocol was performed before the actual study was conducted. The interview protocol was brought to the field experts to be checked from the aspect of sentence appropriateness and the coherence of the research questions with the objectives and themes. The revised interview protocol was improved before the pilot test was conducted.
After reviewing the interview protocol, a preliminary study was conducted on two study participants of D&T teachers who had similar characteristics to the actual study participants to ensure that the questions constructed were suitable for obtaining the required information.
Researchers also gain experience conducting semi-structured qualitative studies on actual study participants and negotiating study consent through preliminary studies. It is done to provide the researcher with initial exposure before the actual study is conducted. In addition, it can also help researchers improve existing weaknesses and improve interview skills, allow researchers to identify interesting data from study participants and help researchers develop and try out interview arrangements for real studies (Silverman 2013).
According to Creswell (2008), Bodgan and Biklen (2007) state the validity of a qualitative study can be done by returning interview transcripts to study participants for review and acknowledgement purposes. After study participants reviewed and agreed to the transcript, they were asked to sign an interview confirmation form to confirm the interview information. This validation makes the validity and reliability of the data possible.
Thematic Analysis
All interview sessions were conducted in the transcript verbatim form and conducted phase by phase through pattern matching to facilitate the researcher analyzing the data (Yin 1994). Semi- structured interviews were conducted in this phase according to a thematic format that focused on qualitative analysis of the interview data (Catherine 2015). The semi-structured interviews allow study participants to express their opinions according to their ideas, and the results of the qualitative data obtained are reliable (Cohen 2008). Every word in the interview recorded and transferred in the form of a transcript requires a high degree of patience, scrutiny, and repetition to ensure that the bytes of words stated by the study participants are correct. This is in line with the suggestion of Godson and Sikes (2001) that auditory repetition and rewriting will strengthen the researcher’s relationship with the data that can develop themes for further analysis.
The analysis begins as soon as the interview transcript process is completed. Each unit in the transcript is grouped under one theme and category, sub-categorized and analyzed to produce a theme (Miles & Huberman 1985). This process is done using Nvivo 12 software. Several of the formed categories are moved into the same category, and some of the categories will form several themes in response to the relevant research questions(Creswell, 2013). Code constructions, categories and themes are linked as data chain constructions.
4. Result and Discussion
The analysis of this research question was to collect information based on interviews directed on four teachers to see the problems and needs for applying design thinking in the teaching process of D&T in secondary schools. The results of the transcript analysis produced three dominant themes, specifically:
Theme 1: Teachers’ perceptions of Design and Technology subjects
Theme 1 shows teachers’ perceptions of the implementation of D&T subjects based on curriculum changes, challenges, and teacher training. Study participants agreed with the transformation of the curriculum by the MOE. It is evident in the following statement.
“It touches the soul of the students as they concentrate on technology and ourselves to shape students towards more creativity and innovation.” (GR1)
“This D&T is good for us to move towards a country that produces products, it is good.” (GR2)
“The D&T subject is a continuation of the KHB subject..and I see many adjustments happening… first of all in electronics, mechanical and others”. (GR3)
From the explanation, it proved that the transformation is in line with the hopes and goals of the Malaysian Education Development Plan PPPM 2013-2025 to provide a high-quality and scholarly society that includes six critical components today, particularly knowledge, thinking skills, leadership skills, bilingual skills, ethics and spirituality, and identity national.
Transformation implies a complete change that brings reform to society, which entails shifts in beliefs, knowledge, attitudes, system and organizational structure, system and organizational appearance, technology, work culture, work processes, and work performance (Adlina Ab Halim et al., 2020; Hussin, 2014)
Additionally, the transformation of education will meet the government’s goals in the third and fourth strategies of the country’s economic growth activities or Key Economic Growth Activities (KEGA) in the future in preparation for the phenomenon of knowledge-based globalization, the digital revolution in the prevailing development course. The Education Revolution 4.0 and beyond can resolve skills’ mismatch with work which is often a question for employers and meet the government’s target of increasing 35% of highly skilled workers in local and Bumiputera employment in management and professional (Laporan Wawasan Kemakmuran Bersama 2030). In this setting, education is a critical determinant in developing the nation in the era of Industrial Revolution 4.0, where students must own superior education, viable, and ready to face digital challenges in the future (Asbah Razali, Fauziah Ani, & Siti Nor Azhani, 2019; Aziz, 2018; Mian, Salah, Ameen, Moiduddin, & Alkhalefah, 2020).
Teachers perform curriculum policies to achieve the aspired goals (Sahaat & Nasri, 2020).
They are accountable for designing the most competent learning atmosphere to support student engagement and build relationships between content learned and personal experiences (Hsu &
Yeh, 2019; Mohd Syazwan and Fariza, 2020). Nonetheless, the execution of a transformation is a perplexing business. Based on the study’s data, teachers faced several challenges in implementing the teaching and learning process of D&T. Some of the challenges encountered included time and teachers' knowledge. It is evident as follows:
“The activity will be interrupted because it involves 10 minutes of explanation, 10 minutes of preparation, and 10 minutes for them to tidy up. So the practical process is relatively short.”(G1)
“It is not enough (time). Because we want to carry out the project. (then) we need to provide materials. It is insufficient”. (G2)
“Another constraint that they faced was students’ movement from class to the workshop. Much time was wasted there. I feel the necessity for extra time for students to do practical activities.”(G3)
Therefore, the above statement showed a need for alternative teaching methods that change conventional teaching methods to 21st-century teaching to overcome teachers’ time constraints in implementing teaching and learning. Sahaat and Nasri (2020) too supported it, who found that student learning time was at a moderate level that is insufficient and can only produce projects with minimal value. Even a study by Cathrine Masingan and Sharif (2019) on non- specialization secondary school D&T teachers discovered that some did not understand and master the direction, the goal of D&T implementation and even mastery of D&T content was also low. Meanwhile, in terms of teaching D&T, several challenges have to be faced by D&T teachers. These challenges included knowledge, environment and infrastructure.
“The challenge that I have to explore was to add existing knowledge to be transferred to students, and to show the natural thing to students related to the latest technology is quite complex… “(We are) still using equipment, old hardware. i.e. the infrastructure has not yet adjusted towards D&T implementation”. (GR1)
“When it comes to the hurdles, we (the D&T teachers) lack knowledge and experience about D&T. Indeed, it takes time. We lack knowledge and experience about D&T.
Indeed, it takes time.” (GR2)
“However, when activities involve theory, (we) still use the old way of teaching methods. The students look uninterested. Not enthusiastic”. (GR3)
Since D&T is a subject that centres on structured problem solving through the use of the latest manufacturing technology and project production, teachers’ knowledge and skills are requisite in assuring that the set learning standards can be achieved. In presenting ample knowledge, teachers need to have skills and comprehensive knowledge of the subjects taught, use and manage teaching time carefully with the help of the latest technology to run smoothly and achieve the set learning standards (Bullock, 2015). Mohamad Nurul Azmi Mat Nor et al. (2017) declared that D&T teachers need perpetual support from professionals and industry to master the knowledge, skills and even pedagogy of D&T. Teachers will be better prepared to provide students who can think at a high level and be ready for future trials through this support.
Theme 2: The need for the application of design thinking in the teaching and learning of D&T
The study results showed that there is a need to apply design thinking among D&T subjects.
Design thinking is a relatively fresh concept for the education system, and its weight attains worldwide recognition if this concept is emphasized and promoted as a whole in D&T subjects(Kangas, 2013). This thinking is also increasingly accepted in product design, engineering, and business to enhance innovation and creative practice. Furthermore, in education itself, design thinking is used as a practice and a means for solving practical problems(Chai et al., 2015; Dorst, 2011; Dym, Agogino, Eris, Frey, & Leifer, 2006; Koh, Chai, Benjamin, et al., 2015). Implementing design thinking stimulates students to be creative and work as a general framework in 21st-century education (Chai et al., 2015; Johansson- Sköldberg, Woodilla, & Çetinkaya, 2013; McFadden & Roehrig, 2019; NurulRabihah Mat Noh, 2020; Wright & Wrigley, 2019).
“I see in terms of the need for students to master the design process, I think it is desirable and should be implemented. Through design thinking, this not only helps students to develop project designs but also trains them to think more creatively and critically.” (GR1)
“I think it is very interesting if the application of design thinking in D&T subjects.
Students can perform hands-on activities. Through the application of these elements will make students more creative and bold to try something new.” (GR2)
“In my opinion, this design thinking will increase the overall understanding of the students as it involves various processes as well as project development. So students will have fun and be more interested in getting involved.” (GR3)
“Design thinking can be applied in the teaching and learning process, especially in the product development process. It is very helpful for students to understand more deeply and systematically the design process. As the needs and preparation of students before they study TRIZ in Form 2 and also develop projects in Form 3.” (GR4)
With the adaptation of engineering elements and product development applied in the design thinking process, solving a problem will support students to think out of the box and with enthusiasm. Moreover, it is also a powerful alternative to drive objective-based creativity, i.e.
problem solving and developing prototypes in learning activities that will prepare students to face modern challenges and problems(Chen, Tian, Xu, Cao, & Li, 2019; Ronen-Fuhrmann et al., 2008). In other words, by applying design thinking, students can make decisions based on future human needs and not just rely on information from past studies or make risky bets solely based on instinct and evidence (Shahriman 2020).
The study’s conclusions also demonstrated that the application of design thinking also highlights the cross-curricular elements needed in 21st-century skills, especially in STEM education. The design thinking will inspire students to acquire knowledge creatively and innovatively (NurulRabihah Mat Noh, 2020) and foster communication and collaboration between peers, teachers and third parties such as parents and experts in the field. These skills are consistent and in line with the needs of the time and can positively influence and produce students who can think at a high level to face the wave of global transformation in the 21st century. Hence, it proved the relevance for applying design thinking in schools and integrating skills required in STEM education (Kangas, 2013). In addition, Ziaeefard, Miller, Rastgaar, &
Mahmoudian (2017),also wrote that design learning strategies present entertainment to students, develop student creativity (Barlex & Trebell, 2008; Kao, Chiang, & Sun, 2017; Kelley
& Sung, 2017), boost comprehension (English, 2019; Kao et al., 2017) and student attainment (Chin et al., 2019). It submitted that clear design thinking could expose students to 21st-century learning skills through innovation, problem-based learning, creativity, human-centeredness, empathy and collaboration(Doppelt, 2009; Kao et al., 2017; NurulRabihah Mat Noh, 2020;
Wells, 2013; Ziaeefard et al., 2017).
Theme 3: Integration of ICT and 21st-century learning in the application of design thinking.
ICT integration plays a part from a practical outlook, but skills acquisition incorporates significant learning in science, innovation, and technology into education(Liesa-Orús, Latorre- Cosculluela, Vázquez-Toledo, & Sierra-Sánchez, 2020). Salam, Mailok, & Ubaidullah (2015) said that today’s digital technology approach could provide students space, opportunity, and
freedom to master and explore knowledge. Graham (2006) affirmed that prevailing teaching and learning methods need to change from conventional to contemporary techniques such as blended learning based on three central ideas, particularly (1) towards pedagogical improvement; (2) increase access, flexibility and more cost-effective efficiency; and (3) encourage social interaction. Apart from that, it requires student-centred learning (active learning) and teacher-centred learning (e-learning), where the learning process can be controlled regardless of place and time (Panyajamorn, Suanmali, Kohda, Chongphaisal, &
Supnithi, 2018). This argument also clarifies that teachers are ready and able to adapt ICT and 21st-century learning in D&T teaching. Based on the interviews attended, D&T teachers were ready and used ICT hardware and software in the teaching and learning process in the classroom, such as laptops and LCD Projectors, to project teaching materials such as video and PowerPoint. A comparison by (Khairu Nuzul Hassan, 2017) on teachers in Vocational Colleges also decided that teachers already had the knowledge and skills and could use ICT in the teaching and learning process workshop. It signified that teachers already had the knowledge and skills to use ICT in the teaching process.
“yes, I use ICT in teaching and learning sessions.” (GR1)
“I use of LCD, laptop. PowerPoint video. Then we make games and others.” (GR2)
Thus, it suggested that 21st-century teaching and learning manoeuvrings through convivial and prolific ICT integration will positively impact student thinking and be available through various formal and informal educational and design enterprises (Alashwal, 2020; Wrigley, Mosely, & Tomitsch, 2018; Wrigley & Straker, 2017). Many previous studies have shown that this integration can impact student learning, especially interest and the level of information exploration. For example, Augmented Reality (AR) helps students undergo new experiences and gain extra information while interacting with the natural environment (Mohd Syazwan and Fariza Khalid 2020). These student-centred learning strategies will help students construct brand-new knowledge, develop their perception, shape their subject acumen, and produce quality, creative, and innovative works (Kim & Md-Ali, 2017; Norazlin Mohd Rusdin & Siti Rahaimah Ali, 2018). This finding aligned with a previous study by Golan and Jackson (2009) that productive teaching strategies are essential to stimulating student judgment. This approach can develop 21st-century skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving, communication, and even enhancing collaboration (Siddiq, Scherer, & Tondeur, 2016). Using technology stimulates students’ learning experiences, sequentially enhancing their performance, engenders collaboration and active learning (Verdonck, Greenaway, Kennedy-Behr, & Askew, 2019).
However, learning approaches that use ICT integration need to be adapted to the online facilities that need to be designed according to students' interests, competencies, and skills (Adams, Joo, Sumintono, & Pei, 2020).
5. Conclusion
Implementing fun and productive teaching and learning strategies in the 21st century will positively impact the development of students’ thinking. There are two aspects of creative design thinking education: teaching becomes creative and creative teaching. Teaching to be creative is a method practiced to develop and nurture students’ thinking and behaviour. In contrast, creative teaching refers to how a teacher or educator makes the classroom environment more enjoyable by using innovative methods to engage students in learning activities despite different backgrounds actively. Moreover, students also have the potential to be more creative and competitive. Technological advances and the implementation of new policies in education prompted teachers to redefine practical teaching strategies and processes.
In line with the latest technological advances, various learning activities must be implemented efficiently to improve the quality of teaching and to learn in the classroom. Therefore, learning approaches must be identified and developed to enhance students ’knowledge and skills to succeed in today’s society.
As a summary of the findings, this clearly shows that teachers are aware that the transformation of education and the application of design thinking can have a positive impact on student development, especially in terms of improving 21st-century skills, improving student understanding, creating a fun learning environment and applying elements across the curriculum.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by the Ministry of Education Malaysia for the Hadiah Latihan Persekutuan (HLP) and University Kebangsaan Malaysia
References
Adams, D., Joo, M. T. H., Sumintono, B., & Pei, O. S. (2020). Blended learning engagement in higher education institutions: A differential item functioning analysis of students’
backgrounds. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 17(1), 133–158.
https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2020.17.1.6
Adlina Ab Halim, Othman, N., Nasir, A., Yusof, M., Majid, A. A., & Azri, N. (2020). The Effects of MOOC TITAS toward the Inculcation of Values among Public University Students, 2(1), 40–48.
Alashwal, M. (2020). Design Thinking in STEM Education: A Review. International Research in Higher Education, 5(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.5430/irhe.v5n1p18
Alias, N., Dewitt, D., Siraj, S., Abdul, M. N., Gelamdin, R. B., Amnah, R., & Rauf, A. (2014).
Implementation of Ptechls Modules in Rural Malaysian Secondary School: A Needs Analysis. Malaysia Online Journal of Educational Techology, 2(1), 30–35.
Asbah Razali, Fauziah Ani, & Siti Nor Azhani. (2019). Cabaran Masyarakat Hari Ini:
Malaysia dalam MenghadapI Perubahan sosial dan Revolusi Industri 4.0. Mendepani Perubahan Sosial dalam Era Revolusi Industri 4.0 (Vol. 53).
Aziz, A. (2018). Education 4.0 Made Simple: Ideas For Teaching. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 6(3), 92. Retrieved from https://journals.aiac.org.au/index.php/IJELS/article/view/4616
Barlex, D. M., & Trebell, D. (2008). Design-without-make: Challenging the conventional approach to teaching and learning in a design and technology classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18(2), 119–138.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-007-9025-5
Bellanca, J., Eds, R. B., Barell, J., Darling-hammond, L., Dede, C., Dufour, R., … November, A. (2010). 21C 21st Century Skills : Rethinking How Students Learn. Solution Tree Press Study Guide, (Study Guide), 1–27.
Benson, J., & Dresdow, S. (2014). Design Thinking: A Fresh Approach for Transformative Assessment Practice. Journal of Management Education, 38(3), 436–461.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562913507571
Binder, T., Michelis, G. De, Ehn, P., Jacucci, G., Lind, P., & Wagner, I. (2011). Design Things/
A.Telier.
Bullock, M. (2015). What makes a good teacher? Exploring student and teacher beliefs on good teaching. Rising Tide Volume, 7, 1–30.
Cathrine Masingan, & Sharif, S. (2019). Pengetahuan Pedagogi Kandungan (PPK) Guru Bukan
Pengkhususan Reka Bentuk dan Teknologi (RBT) di Sekolah Menengah. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJ - SSH), 4(6), 64–71.
Chai, C. S., Deng, F., Tsai, P. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2015). Assessing multidimensional students’ perceptions of twenty-first-century learning practices. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16(3), 389–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-015-9379-4 Chen, C., Tian, W., Xu, W., Cao, F., & Li, L. (2019). Structure and Band Alignment
Engineering of CdS/TiO2/Bi2WO6 Trilayer Nanoflake Array for Efficient Photoelectrochemical Water Splitting. ChemElectroChem, 6(20), 5248–5254.
https://doi.org/10.1002/celc.201901459
Chin, D. B., Blair, K. P., Wolf, R. C., Conlin, L. D., Cutumisu, M., Pfaffman, J., & Schwartz, D. L. (2019). Educating and Measuring Choice: A Test of the Transfer of Design Thinking in Problem Solving and Learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(3), 337–380.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2019.1570933
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues.The Journal of the learning sciences, 13(1), 15-42. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301
Cook, K. L., & Bush, S. B. (2018). Design thinking in integrated STEAM learning: Surveying the landscape and exploring exemplars in elementary grades. School Science and Mathematics, 118(3–4), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12268
Creswell, J. (2013). Educatyional Research : Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research - 4th ed (4th ed.). Pearson.
Cross, N. (2011). DESIGN THINKING.
Doppelt, Y. (2009). Assessing creative thinking in design-based learning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(1), 55–65.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-006-9008-y
Dorst, K. (2011). The core of “design thinking” and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521–
532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006
Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2006). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 34(1), 65–90.
https://doi.org/10.1109/emr.2006.1679078
Ekonomi, K. H. E. (2019). Ringkasan Wawasan Kemakmuran Bersama 2030.
English, L. D. (2019). Learning while designing in a fourth-grade integrated STEM problem.
International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(5), 1011–1032.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9482-z
Henriksen, D., Richardson, C., & Mehta, R. (2017). Design thinking: A creative approach to educational problems of practice. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 26(March), 140–153.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.10.001
Hsu, Y., & Yeh, Y. (2019). Asia-Pacific STEM Teaching Practices. Asia-Pacific STEM Teaching Practices. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0768-7
Hussin, S. (2014). Cabaran menyeluruh dalam pelaksanaan transformasi pendidikan untuk masa depan malaysia. Seminar Tranformasi Pendidikan Nasional, 9–10.
Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design thinking: Past, present and possible futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), 121–146.
https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12023
Kadir, K. A., Nordin, N. M., & Iksan, Z. (2017). Reka Bentuk dan Pembangunan Modul Sains (e-SMART) Berasaskan Pendekatan Konstruktivisme 5E dan Analogi : Satu Alternatif Strategi Pengajaran Bagi Menerapkan Kemahiran Berfikir Kreatif Murid, 1, 80.
Kangas, K. (2013). Design Thinking in Elementary Students’ Collaborative Lamp Designing Process. Design and Technology Education, 18(1), 30–43.
Kao, G. Y. M., Chiang, C. H., & Sun, C. T. (2017). Customizing scaffolds for game-based
learning in physics: Impacts on knowledge acquisition and game design creativity.
Computers and Education, 113, 294–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.022 Kelley, T., & Sung, E. (2017). Examining elementary school students’ transfer of learning through engineering design using Think-Aloud protocol analysis. Journal of Technology Education, 28(2), 83–108. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v28i2.a.5
Khairu Nuzul Hassan. (2017). Reka Bentuk Dan Pembangunan Model Pengajaran Berasaskan Ict (eE-Tvet) Bagi Kursus Mekanikal Dan Pembuatan Di Kolej Vokasional: Satu Analisis Keperluan. 6TH INTERNATIONAL CONFER- ENCE ON PUBLIC POLICY AND SOCIAL SCIENCES ICOPS2017, 12(2), 1–10.
Kim, K. M., & Md-Ali, R. (2017). Geogebra: Towards realizing 21st century learning in mathematics education. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, (Specialissue), 93–115. https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli.2017.7799
Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking design thinking. The International Journal of Design Education, 10(2), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.18848/2325-128x/cgp/v10i02/9-17
Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Benjamin, W., & Hong, H. Y. (2015). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) and Design Thinking: A Framework to Support ICT Lesson Design for 21st Century Learning. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(3), 535–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-015-0237-2
Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Wong, B., & Hong, H. Y. (2015). Design thinking for education:
Conceptions and applications in teaching and learning. Design Thinking for Education:
Conceptions and Applications in Teaching and Learning, 1–131.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-444-3
Krohn, N., & Krohn, N. (2011). 2. Chapter 2: DESIGN THINKING. Reading Academic Hebrew, 17–40. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004196186.i-584.121
Kwek, S. (2011). Innovation in the Classroom: Design Thinking for 21st Century Learning.
Stanford EDU. https://doi.org/10.1007/11608035_20
Lasan, T. R. T., Noh, M. A. C., & Hamzah, M. I. (2017). Pengetahuan, Sikap dan Kesediaan Murid Terhadap Kemahiran Berfikir Aras Tinggi (KBAT) dalam Mata Pelajaran Tasawwur Islam. Tinta Artikulasi Membina Ummah, 3(1), 15–28.
Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., diSessa, A. A., Graesser, A. C., Benson, L. C., English, L. D., &
Duschl, R. A. (2019). Design and Design Thinking in STEM Education. Journal for STEM Education Research, 2(2), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-019-00020-z Liesa-Orús, M., Latorre-Cosculluela, C., Vázquez-Toledo, S., & Sierra-Sánchez, V. (2020).
The technological challenge facing higher education professors: Perceptions of ICT tools for developing 21st Century skills. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(13).
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135339
Lynch, M., Kamovich, U., Longva, K. K., & Steinert, M. (2019). Combining technology and entrepreneurial education through design thinking: Students’ reflections on the learning process. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, (June), 119689.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.06.015
Malaysia Education Blueprint, M. (2013). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013 - 2025.
Education, 27(1), 1–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.007
McFadden, J., & Roehrig, G. (2019). Engineering design in the elementary science classroom:
supporting student discourse during an engineering design challenge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education (Vol. 29). Springer Netherlands.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9444-5
Mian, S. H., Salah, B., Ameen, W., Moiduddin, K., & Alkhalefah, H. (2020). Adapting universities for sustainability education in industry 4.0: Channel of challenges and opportunities. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(15). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156100 Mohamad Nurul Azmi Mat Nor, Nurzatulshima Kamarudin, Umi Kalthom Abdul Manaf, &
Mohd Hazwan Mohd Puad. (2017). Penerapan Kemahiran Berfikir Aras Tinggi (KBAT) dalam Kurikulum Reka Bentuk dan Teknologi (RBT) Sekolah Rendah. International Journal of Education and Training (InjET), 3(2), 1–7. Retrieved from http://www.injet.upm.edu.my
Mohd Rosdi, M. F., Abdul Kadir, S., & Nazri, M. I. (2018). Tahap Kemahiran dan Kecenderungan Pemikiran Kritis Murid Tingkatan Dua Dalam Mata Pelajaran Kemahiran Hidup Bersepadu (KHB) di Negeri Kedah dan Hubungannya. Asia Pacific Journal of Educators and Education, 32, 45–60. https://doi.org/10.21315/apjee2017.32.4
Mustafa, U. A. M. (2017). Amalan Pengajaran Guru dan Kreativiti Pelajar Terhadap Strategi Peluang Perniagaan Dalam Kalangan Pelaajr Pengajian Keusahawanan Sekolah menengah Teknik. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 5(1), 86–
96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2009.09.004
Noh, N. M., Siraj, S., Halili, S. H., Jamil, M. R. M., & Husin, Z. (2019). Application of fuzzy delphi method as a vital element in technology as a tool in design thinking based learning.
Asia Pacific Journal of Educators and Education, 34(d), 129–151.
https://doi.org/10.21315/apjee2019.34.7
Norazlin Mohd Rusdin, & Siti Rahaimah Ali. (2018). Implementation of 21 st Century Learning and the Challenges. 3rd UUM International Qualitative Research Conference (QRC) 2018 10-12 July 2018, Melaka, Malaysia Implementation, (July), 65–73.
NurulRabihah Mat Noh. (2020). Pembangunan Model Pengajaran Pemikiran Reka Bentuk Sekolah Rendah Nurulrabihah Bt Mat Noh Fakulti Pendidikan.
Owen-Jackson, G. (2007). Teaching and learning in design and technology. Design and Technology International Millennium Conference. Retrieved from http://www.routledge.com/books/A-Practical-Guide-to-Teaching-Design-and-
Technology-in-the-Secondary-School-isbn9780415423694
Panyajamorn, T., Suanmali, S., Kohda, Y., Chongphaisal, P., & Supnithi, T. (2018).
Effectiveness of E-Learning Design in Thai Public Schools. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 15(1), 1–34.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (1999). The National Curriculum: Communicating Archaeology, 10–90. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvh1dhfr.13
Ronen-Fuhrmann, T., Kali, Y., & Hoadley, C. (2008). Helping education students understand learning through designing. Educational Technology, 48(2), 26–33.
Rossi de Campos, L. (2015). Design thinking in education: A case study following one school district’s approach to innovation for the 21st century. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Saari, A., Rasul, M. S., Yasin, R. M., Rauf, R. A. A., Ashari, Z. H. M., & Pranita, D. (2021).
Skills sets for workforce in the 4th industrial revolution: Expectation from authorities and industrial players. Journal of Technical Education and Training, 13(2), 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.30880/jtet.2021.13.02.001
Sahaat, Z., & Nasri, N. M. (2020). Cabaran pelaksanaan mata pelajaran Reka Bentuk dan Teknologi sekolah Menengah. Jurnal Pendidikan Malaysia, 45(1(SI)), 51–59.
Said, M. M. B. M., & Yunus, N. (2008). Halangan-halangan Kepada Usaha Memupuk Kreativiti Di Kalangan Pelajar. Prosiding SKIKS, 89–150.
Salam, F., Mailok, R., & Ubaidullah, N. (2015). Perubahan Pencapaian Mata Pelajaran Teknologi Maklumat dan Komunikasi melalui Pembelajaran Berasaskan Projek dengan Scaffolding (The Change of Achievements in Information and Communication Technology Subjects through Project-Based Learning with Scaffoldin. Jurnal Pendidikan Malaysia, 40(1), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.17576/JPEN-2015-%x
Scheer, A., Noweski, C., & Meinel, C. (2012). Transforming Constructivist Learning into Action: Design Thinking in education. Transforming Constructivist Learning into Action:
Design Thinking in Education.
Siddiq, F., Scherer, R., & Tondeur, J. (2016). Teachers’ emphasis on developing students’
digital information and communication skills (TEDDICS): A new construct in 21st century education. Computers and Education, 92–93, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.006
Siraj, S., Alias, N., DeWitt, D., Zaharah, H., & Mohd Ridhuan, M. J. (2013). Design and Development Research: Emergent Trends in Educational Research. Narratives of Therapists’ Lives. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1040325
Tortochot, É. (2017). ICT learning in A Design and Technology Curriculum Éric Tortochot To cite this version : HAL Id : hal-01450060 ICT learning in A Design AND Technology curriculum, (Patt 29).
Toshiaki Kurokawa. (2013). Design Thinking Education at Universities and Graduate Schools.
Science & Technology Trends, 46, 50–63. Retrieved from http://www.nistep.go.jp/en/wp- content/uploads/Science-Technology-Trends-Quarterly-Review-No.46－report4.pdf Triling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). Century Skills. 21St Century Skill, (Book), 48.
Unit Penyelidikan dan Pentaksiran Sekolah, K. (2019). Kajian Tahap Pelaksanaan Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Menengah (KSSM). Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum (Vol. 2).
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Verdonck, M., Greenaway, R., Kennedy-Behr, A., & Askew, E. (2019). Student experiences of learning in a technology-enabled learning space. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 56(3), 270–281.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2018.1515645
Wagner, T. (2008). The Global Achievement Gap, 21st Century Skills. Journal of Physics D:
Applied Physics (Vol. 29). Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21226399
Wells, A. (2013). The importance of design thinking for technological literacy: A phenomenological perspective. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(3), 623–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-012-9207-7
Wright, N., & Wrigley, C. (2019). Broadening design-led education horizons: conceptual insights and future research directions. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9429-9
Wrigley, C., Mosely, G., & Tomitsch, M. (2018). Design Thinking Education: A Comparison of Massive Open Online Courses. She Ji, 4(3), 275–292.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2018.06.002
Wrigley, C., & Straker, K. (2017). Design Thinking pedagogy: the Educational Design Ladder.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(4), 374–385.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1108214
Yata, C., Ohtani, T., & Isobe, M. (2020). Conceptual framework of STEM based on Japanese subject principles. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00205-8
Ziaeefard, S., Miller, M. H., Rastgaar, M., & Mahmoudian, N. (2017). Co-robotics hands-on activities: A gateway to engineering design and STEM learning. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 97, 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2017.07.013
