No abstract

Recently, design thinking has become recognized as a necessity for every student, especially when they engage in design-based learning, as a pedagogical approach to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. However, design-based learning is mostly based on forward engineering, in which students' design thinking can be nurtured by designing unknown solutions. Little is known about whether design thinking can be facilitated in the context of reverse engineering, when students learn from already designed products. This study therefore seeks to explore the perceptions of 38 ninth-grade students on the characteristics of design thinking before and after a four-week reverse engineering project, using Likert scales to measure six aspects of design thinking, namely (a) being comfortable with uncertainty and risks, (b) human-centeredness, (c) mindfulness to the process and impacts on others, (d) collaboratively working with diversity, (e) orientation to learning by making and testing, and (f) being confident and optimistic to use creativity. The data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics, including means, standard deviations, paired-samples t-tests, and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. The results indicate that two aspects, human-centeredness and being confident and optimistic to use creativity, were significant (p = 0.008 and p = 0.043, respectively), with size effects of 0.43 and 0.34, respectively. Based on this potential, reverse engineering can be a design-based learning approach to facilitate students' design thinking. It is recommended that instructional activities involving reverse engineering maintain some degree of ambiguity and risk to prevent design fixation among students.

Due to a recent educational reform in Thailand, elementary teachers are challenged to use an engineering design process as an instructional approach to STEM education. This would require them to have a design thinking mindset (DTM) as a basic requirement. However, it has been argued that it is difficult to measure DTM using a questionnaire. Therefore, there has been little information if Thai elementary teachers possess DTM. This study aimed to develop and validate a Thai version of DTM questionnaire with two groups of Thai elementary teachers (N=138). Successively determinding Cronbach’s alpha values with each group of the teachers, six components of DTM were suggested. These components included (1) Being comfortable with problems, (2) User empathy, (3) Mindfulness of the process, (4) Collaborative working with diversity, (5) Orientation to learning, and (6) Creative confidence. While this result may need to be comfirmed with a larger population of teachers, a Thai version of the questionnaire can be potentially used to explore Thai elementary teachers’ DTM in other contexts.

No abstract

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, as an educational policy, provides opportunities for students to learn these disciplines in more integrated ways than traditional methods. This can be pedagogically accomplished via a design-based approach where students engage collaboratively in solving engineering problems using various domains of knowledge and skills. In this pedagogical process, design thinking is vital. However, little is known about whether students develop this kind of thinking and its mindset when engaging in design-based activities. The purpose of this study is to examine the influence of a design-based activity on design thinking. Participants included 18 ninth-grade students in a small rural school. The data were collected using a Likert-scale questionnaire before and after the design-based activity, in combination with classroom observations and focus group interviews with the students. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to analyse the quantitative data and a thematic analysis method was utilised for the qualitative data. The results indicate that the students were significantly more comfortable with solving engineering problems, even though other aspects of design thinking mindset (e.g., user empathy, collaboratively working with diversity, orientation toward learning, and creative confidence) were not significantly different. These results are discussed based on the enacted nature of the activity.