Social Sciences & Humanities Open 3 (2021) 100116

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Social Sciences & Humanities Open

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ssaho

Performance task assessment supported by the design thinking process:

Results from a true experimental research
Eduard M. Albay *, Delia V. Eisma
Mathematics and Allied Disciplines Department, College of Arts and Sciences, Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University, Philippines

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Providing students with a responsive classroom and relevant learning activities are vital in developing among
21st century learning them the 21st century skills and competences. Because schools are viewed as a compulsory place to hone these,
Design thinking undergraduate students must be provided with tasks and assessment that equip them with skills to facilitate a 21st
Performance task assessment
century classroom. This posttest-only true experimental research study was conducted to analyze the performance
of the respondents in a performance task assessment as supported by the principles of the design thinking process.
Particularly, it examined and compared the performances of the experimental group and the control group in
demonstration teaching. The results showed that the experimental group posted remarkably higher mean scores
in the performance task and they significantly outperformed the control group. The study concluded that the
implementation of the design thinking process can facilitate teachers in creating a creative, interactive, engaging
and learner-centered classroom.

1. Introduction education that involve design thinking as a method for developing

creativity and innovation (Beckman & Barry, 2007; Brenner, Ueber-
Over the last few decades, the design thinking process has been nickel, & Abrell, 2016; H€ager & Uflacker, 2016; Melles, Howard, &
widely accepted as a method for innovation (Dolata & Schwabe, 2016, Thompson-Whiteside, 2012) and soft skills, particularly empathy,
pp. 67–83; Wrigley; H€ ager & Uflacker, 2016; Mosely & Tomitsch, 2018) collaboration, and non-linear problem solving (Ewin, Luck, Chugh, &
and has become the topic of interest for researchers and practitioners Jarvis, 2017).
from a range of fields (Dalsgaard, 2014). It has become a potent tool in As traditional approaches in teaching may no longer work effectively
addressing “complex social problems, issues of organizational manage- (Luka, 2014), educational institutions endeavoured to look for new
ment, and strategic innovation (Brown & Katz, 2011; Laferriere, Engeler, instructional methodologies of enhancing student learning (Albay, 2019;
& Rixon, 2019; Liedtka, 2015). Design thinking has been considered as a Retna, 2016) that go beyond knowledge acquisition and foster
means to improve corporate strategies and transform businesses (Carlg- constructivist learning (Carroll et al., 2010; Gore et al., 2017; Scheer,
ren, Rauth, & Elmquist, 2016; Cooper, Junginger, & Lockwood, 2009). Noweski, & Meinel, 2012; Timperley & Alton-Lee, 2008). Therefore,
Companies like Toyota, Starbucks (Beckman & Barry, 2007), SAP (Sav- several researchers and education experts conducted studies of different
vas, 2012), Microsoft (Lund, 2011) and Apple (Thomke & Feinberg, designs employing the principles of design thinking in the teaching and
2010, p. 609) incorporate the principles of design thinking in their learning process.
pursuit of innovation. Literatures also recognized the power of design Şener, Türk, and Taş (2015) found in their study that the science
thinking stating that it significantly improved product innovation and education project which utilized different learning environments such as
decision making in fields like management, public health, and entre- hands on activities, laboratory and outdoor practices, creative drama,
preneurship (Chou, 2018). and planetarium and observatory activities enhanced the students’ atti-
While business companies, industries, and other organization main- tude and interests towards science and increased their levels of creative
tain and continuously patronize the principles of design thinking as an thinking. The researchers opined that the implementation of design
innovation methodology (Lindgaard & Wesselius, 2017), a survey of principles in the classroom can contribute to the development of creative
literatures also reveal a growing number of researches in various levels of thinking skills and can influence the attainment of a more positive

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (E.M. Albay), [email protected] (D.V. Eisma).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2021.100116
Received 2 March 2020; Received in revised form 12 January 2021; Accepted 14 January 2021
Available online 2 February 2021
2590-2911/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
E.M. Albay, D.V. Eisma Social Sciences & Humanities Open 3 (2021) 100116

attitude towards learning. management education. The paper reflected readings indicating that
In another study, Tsai (2015) investigated the effects of design thinking can contribute to innovation in projects, improving
web-mediated design thinking and co-regulated learning in developing exploration, stakeholder involvement, and strategy formation. Therefore,
computing skills in a blended course among 153 higher education stu- integrating the principles of design thinking into the project management
dents enrolled in the subject Applied Information Technology: Data curriculum can develop students’ skills and competences that are deemed
Processing. Results of the analysis revealed that the group which received vital in producing better project managers. Koh, Chai, Benjamin, and
the intervention of web-mediated design thinking and co-regulated Hong (2015) also argued that the 21st century competencies can be
learning posted significantly better computing skills using the MS Excel. developed among the students by integrating design thinking to various
An experimental study conducted by Mentzer, Becker, and Sutton technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) considerations.
(2015) examined the performances of freshmen and senior students, and In addition, Laferriere et al. (2019) suggested in their reflection paper the
experts in a 3-h design task that was audio and video recorded. The re- need for students to be equipped with the design thinking principles to
sults of the investigation revealed that both the students and experts were capacitate them in providing human-centered solutions and opportu-
engaged most of the time in modelling. Also, the students and experts nities in their respective communities and organizations. Numerous
posted a significant difference in the time spent for information gathering publications by academics, practitioners, and government organizations
and idea generation. The seniors and experts spent lesser time in those highlight that design thinking is a powerful tool to develop relevant so-
two processes as compared to the freshmen. The experts however, spent cial competences among students (McKilligan, Fila, Rover, & Mina, 2017,
more time in determining the feasibility of their ideas, evaluating alter- pp. 1–5). Moreover, Çeviker-Çınar, Mura, and Demirba g-Kaplan (2017)
native ideas, and decision making than the students. view design thinking as a novel approach in meeting students’ needs and
The case study of Daniel (2016) suggested a positive influence of the in producing innovative individuals, hence it can be used in all levels of
design thinking on the motivation and satisfaction of the students with education.
their overall performance. The results of the experimental study of Yang, Meanwhile, in the Philippines, the implementation of the K to 12
Lee, Hong, and Lin (2016) indicated that the experimental group per- Basic Education Program had caused significant changes in the curricu-
formed significantly better than the comparison group in science inquiry lum, instruction, and assessment practices. The Republic Act (RA) 10533
and convergent thinking. (2013), otherwise known as the Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013,
Another study was conducted by van de Grift and Kroeze in 2016 required that the curriculum shall employ pedagogical approaches that
which utilized design thinking as a tool for interdisciplinary education in are constructivist, inquiry-based, reflective, collaborative, differentiated,
health care involving 27 medicine, psychology, other science disciplines, and integrative. The use of performance task assessment to measure
and art students who worked in interdisciplinary groups on an assigned students’ learning and skills in accomplishing practical tasks in and
case study. Finding revealed that 8.5 points out of 10 was recorded as the dealing with real-life problems is also highlighted in the act (Republic Act
average overall score, with 10 being the highest rating. Such perfor- No 10533, 2013; Retna, 2016). Furthermore, the Filipino learners must
mance was attributed to positive points such as activating teaching be equipped with information, media, and technology skills, learning and
environment, academic development, and development of collaboration innovation skills, life and career skills, and communication skills that will
skills and creative capabilities. aid them in taking advantage of the opportunities of the 21st century. The
In the study of Dolata and Schwabe (2016, pp. 67–83), they pointed act also emphasized that education must provide contextualized practice
out that design thinking contributes significantly to the success of aca- for the application of 21st century skills. A Filipino learner who finished
demic research in the Information Systems which leads to a better the K to 12 basic education is envisioned to be ready for entrepreneur-
traceability and understanding of the creative process in research and ship, middle level skills development, employment, and higher
improved credibility of the results. Similarly, Henriksen, Richardson, and education.
Mehta (2017) concluded in their qualitative study of a graduate teaching The Policy Guidelines on the K to 12 Basic Education Program (DepEd
course that design thinking can provide teachers with a manageable Order No. 21, s. 2019) mandated school teachers in the Philippines to
structure or method in dealing with education-related problems in cre- facilitate a responsive learning environment and to provide students with
ative and innovative ways. relevant learning experiences.
Further, Andersen and Pitk€anen (2019) illustrated how teachers and Although literatures recognized design thinking as an effective
principals were trained to develop professional practice in implementing instructional methodology to develop students’ creativity, innovation,
design fabrication and design thinking activities in school in order to aid collaboration, and non-linear problem solving skills, which are among
them in developing students’ understanding of technology and the digital the 21st century skills identified in RA 10533 (2013), to the knowledge of
world. the author, there is no known published research conducted in the
In the field of mathematics, Simon and Cox (2019) examined Philippines that integrated its principles and processes in instruction and
“mathematical modelling through the lens of design and design assessment as of this writing, With the belief that the learners are the
thinking." The result of their narrative inquiry articulated the impact of richest resources for learning, this study was conceptualized and con-
prototyping and design on the mathematical processes. The paper further ducted to help prepare undergraduate students who are taking up Prin-
highlighted that prototyping as an act of mathematization has implica- ciples of Teaching subject in creating a learner-centered mathematics
tions to mathematics education and classroom research. Ke (2014) classroom environment. Specifically, the students enrolled in the subject
examined the potential of computer-assisted, math game making activ- were given a performance task assessment that utilized the design
ities in facilitating design-based math learning for school children. As thinking process in which the expected output was a demonstration
results, the participants developed significantly more positive disposi- teaching that is reflective of the insights gathered from experts, teachers,
tions toward mathematics after computer game making. Also, the and students.
experience-driven game design processes helped to activate the partici-
pants’ reflection on everyday mathematical experiences. 1.1. Conceptual and theoretical framework
Moreover, literature reviews and reflection papers conducted by
various researchers also point out the benefits of design thinking in 1.1.1. The design thinking process
various aspects of education. Vanada (2014) highlighted in her paper Stevens (2019) views design thinking as useful in dealing with wicked
that those learner-centered art classrooms which incorporate design problems, that is, problems that are ambiguous in nature and do not have
thinking as a balanced process can better develop students’ learning a definitive solution. Dam and Teo (2019) explain that such problems can
capabilities. The narrative literarure review of Ewin et al. (2017) stressed be dealt with effectively through design thinking by gaining under-
the potential of design thinking as a novel approach in project standing of the situation and the human needs involved, building

2
E.M. Albay, D.V. Eisma Social Sciences & Humanities Open 3 (2021) 100116

empathy with those who experience the situation, collecting insights move forward to the next stage of the design thinking process.
from their experiences, conducting numerous brainstorming sessions to The fourth stage is called the prototype stage. This is characterized by
generate ideas, and implementing approaches in rapid manner. experimentation and turning the possible solutions into tangible and
Design thinking is defined as a human-centered process and solution- concrete products. This means that the team will produce inexpensive
based approach to solving problems (Cahn, Bzowyckyj, Collins, Dow, scaled-down models or anything that the users can interact with which
Goodell, & Johnson, 2016; Stevens, 2019; Dam & Teo, 2019). It utilizes a incorporates the possible solutions that were identified in the previous
complex of skills, processes, and mindset that facilitate the generation of stage. These prototypes will be tested and investigated to check how
innovative solutions to practical problems which may consequently lead these address the design challenge statement and/or identify any con-
to new objects, ideas, or systems (Goldman & Kabayadondo, 2016, pp. straints or flaws. The prototypes may be shared and tested by the team
21–37). In design thinking, according to Brown and Katz (2011) and and/or by different groups of individuals, including the users. Depending
Stevens (2019), the emphasis is on solution-based thinking where finding on the experiences of the users and those who tested, the prototypes may
and identifying the solutions is given more importance rather than un- be accepted, improved, redesigned, or rejected.
derstanding the given problem (problem-based thinking). After prototyping, the design team and/or other experts will rigor-
According to Jordan and Lande (2016), design thinking is extremely ously evaluate and the users will test the product. This is known as the
user-centric as it focuses on human needs, values, and desirability. The test stage. It is important to understand however, that although the test
ultimate aim of design thinking is to determine effective solutions to stage is the final step in the design thinking process, the results may lead
complex problems (Stevens, 2019) by creating new ideas that express the design team to review the previous stages, learn more about the users,
understanding of the insights gained from the experiences of the target redefine the design challenge statement and the solution concepts, and
users (Carroll et al., 2010). Thus, as emphasized by McKilligan et al. refine prototypes and solutions. During this phase, alterations and re-
(2017), building empathy and understanding of human experiences and finements are made to address the identified constraints and flaws of the
needs within the context of the problem is key in generating creative prototypes to better provide the users with solutions that clearly repre-
insights and solutions in order to address those needs. This leads to the sent their insights.
idea of Suri and Howard (2006) that the catalyzing agent and starting In order to fulfil the ultimate goal of the test stage, the design team
point of the design thinking process is the users. must allow the users to interact with the prototypes and make mean-
Before one can effectively implement design thinking in solving ingful comparisons. It is important that the team listens and learns from
complex problems, it is essential to first gain a firm grasp and under- what the users say, ask, and suggest. It is not a good practice to ask the
standing of the different phases of the design thinking process (Dam & users whether they like the product or not. Instead, the design team
Teo, 2019). Design thinking consists of five iterative phases: empathize, should ask the users what else the members of the design team could do
define, ideate, prototype, and test (Deitte & Omary, 2019). This is known better in order to satisfy the users’ obvious and hidden needs.
as the five-stage design thinking model proposed by Plattner (2011). In summary, the process of design thinking is iterative, non-linear,
The succeeding discussions encapsulate the five stages of the Design flexible, and focused on effective collaboration between the users and
Thinking process, according to the works of Plattner (2011), Stevens the design team. Beckman and Barry (2007) described design thinking as
(2019), and Dam & Teo, 2019. The term “users” refers to the people who a “learning process of observations, developing frameworks, creating
benefit from the problem being solved through design thinking. The term new imperative (ideas), and providing solutions”. The key is to develop
“design team” refers to a group of people who use design thinking for the an emphatic understanding of the users, challenge assumptions, redefine
users. problems, create innovative solutions, and perform rapid prototyping
The empathize phase is the stage where the design team gains an and testing (Krippendorff, 2006; Plattner, 2011; Goodyear, 2015; Dam &
empathetic understanding of the users’ needs, wants, and objectives, the Teo, 2019). Further, Sonalkar, Mabogunje, Pai, Krishnan, and Roth
way they act and think, and the things that are meaningful to them. This (2016) stress that multidisciplinary teamwork is vital in design thinking.
can be done by observing and engaging with the users to understand their
experiences and motivations. This stage may also involve immersion with 1.1.2. Legal bases
the physical environment of the users to understand the issues involved The current study was also rooted from the Philippine’ Republic Act
both at the psychological and emotional levels. Central to human- 10533 (2013), otherwise known as the Enhanced Basic Education Act of
centered design is empathy and obtaining an empathetic understanding 2013, and the Policy Guidelines on the K to 12 Basic Education Program
means setting aside one’s personal assumptions about the situation in (DepEd Order No. 21, s. 2019). These two legal bases require that the
order to gain real insights from users. curriculum shall employ pedagogical approaches that are constructivist,
The define stage, also called the sensemaking stage, requires the inquiry-based, reflective, collaborative, differentiated, and integrative.
design team to define the problem. This can be done by consolidating the The use of performance task assessment to measure students’ learning
insights that they have gathered from the users during the empathize and skills in accomplishing practical tasks in and dealing with real-life
stage. The ultimate goal of the define stage is to craft a relevant and problems is also highlighted in the act and in the department order.
attainable problem statement or design challenge statement. This state- Furthermore, the Filipino learners must be equipped with information,
ment is a clear and explicit expression of the problem that the design media, and technology skills, learning and innovation skills, life and
team needs to address. It provides focus and frames the problem, ex- career skills, and communication skills that will aid them in taking
presses the team’s understanding of the users, and synthesizes the most advantage of the opportunities of the 21st century. The act also empha-
important needs to fulfil. The key is that the design challenge statement sized that education must provide contextualized practice for the appli-
should be stated in a human-centered manner. Instead of saying – “We cation of 21st century skills. A Filipino learner who finished the K to 12
need to …“, a better way of stating it would be – “The users need to …“. basic education is envisioned to be ready for entrepreneurship, middle
The ideate stage concentrates on idea generation with the goal of level skills development, employment, and higher education.
finding potential and innovative solutions to the problem statement or
design challenge statement which the design team had created in the 1.1.3. Theoretical framework
define stage. In this stage, the design team performs ideation sessions Several theories also provided foundational framework for the cur-
employing various ideation techniques, utilize both convergent and rent study - experiential learning theory, cone of experience, situated
divergent thinking to challenge established practices and explore learning theory, constructivism, zone of proximal development, and
possible alternatives, generate a wide range of solution concepts, and test discovery learning theory.
and investigate these solution ideas. These concept solutions will be The experiential learning theory by David Kolb stresses that learning
narrowed down to few innovative solutions from which the team can is influenced by experiences, including cognition, environmental factors,

3
E.M. Albay, D.V. Eisma Social Sciences & Humanities Open 3 (2021) 100116

and emotions. The theory emphasizes that knowledge is generated experts, teachers, students, their peers and contemporaries, and other
through the transformation of experience. Grasping experience can be group of people in the community provided opportunities for them to
done through concrete experience and abstract conceptualization, while learn relevant concepts and principles in delivering a lesson to select
transforming experience can be done by reflective observation and active group of students. Their active involvement in the learning process
experimentation (Kolb, Boyatzis, & Mainemelis, 2001). provided essential opportunities for the respondents to learn further
Another theory that provided framework for the current study was pieces of information and to build connections between these newly
the Cone of Experience by Edgar Dale. In this model, it is explained that acquired knowledge and previously learned concepts. These aspects of
learners remember more things about the things that they do. Davis and the learning experience are considered contributory to the acquisition of
Summers (2015, p. 6) emphasized Dale’s idea in their article that the needed skills by the respondents in coming up with definite, inno-
involving learners directly, purposefully, and in a hands-on manner is the vative, and creative strategies in delivering classroom instructions with
most effective way to let learners learn. These direct and purposeful respect to the set intended learning outcomes. Consequently, the specific
experiences are representations of the reality or the everyday life so it is requirements of the Philippines’ education system as embodied in the
suggested that instructors should design their activities based on and that Republic Act 10533 and DepEd Order No. 21, s. 2019, which are to
will build upon real-life experiences. The authors further noted that employ pedagogical approaches that are constructivist, inquiry-based,
involving the learners in the learning process improves their knowledge reflective, collaborative, differentiated, and integrative and to utilize
retention. performance task assessment to measure students’ learning and skills in
The situated learning theory by Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger also accomplishing practical tasks in and dealing with real-life problems, are
strengthened the theoretical foundation of this study. Lave and Wenger addressed.
(1991) claim that students are more inclined to learn if they are actively
participating in the learning experience. The learning environment 1.2. Objectives of the study
characterized by the situated learning theory places students in authentic
learning situations where they are engaged and immersed in learning The study endeavoured to fulfil the following objectives:
opportunities that involve a social community which replicates real
world situations and require the use of their problem solving and critical 1. Determine the performance of the experimental group and the control
thinking skills (Northern Illinois University Center for Innovative group in demonstration teaching as the required output of the per-
Teaching and Learning, 2012). formance task assessment; and
Meanwhile, constructivism points out that knowledge must be con- 2. Compare the scores of the two groups in demonstration teaching to
structed by the learner and should not to be supplied by the teacher. Its establish whether there exists significant difference between their
main proposition is that knowledge is created as a result of personal performances.
experience, interaction with the environment, making errors, and look-
ing for solutions. In a constructivist classroom, emphasis is given to 2. Methodology and methods
learning in a meaningful context rather than on directly teaching specific
skills (Büyükduman & Şirin, 2010). 2.1. Research design
On the other hand, Lev Vygotsky’s concept of learning called zone of
proximal development (ZPD) articulates that there are categories of The study employed the post-test only true experimental research
things which learners can learn but with the guidance of others. Fani and design to sufficiently address the objectives of the study. Two matched
Ghaemi (2011) cited Vygotsky’s definition of ZPD which is “the distance groups of respondents were randomly assigned, through tossing of a coin,
between the actual developmental level as determined by independent as experimental group and control group. A performance task assessment
problem solving and the level of potential development as determined was given to both groups where the experimental group utilized the five-
through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with stage design thinking process to accomplish the required output of the
more capable peers”. This definition emphasized that learning is more task. On the other hand, the control group used the conventional
meaningful through communication and social interactions than just approach, characterized by independent learning and library works.
through independent work. This is where the idea of collaborative Then, their scores in demonstration teaching were compared to deter-
learning was rooted. mine whether or not there exists significant difference in their
Lastly, the study was also anchored on the concepts of the discovery performances.
learning theory by Bruner. Discovery learning, as pointed out by Cas-
tronova (2002), encompasses instructional strategies that emphasize 2.2. Sources of data
active, hands-on learning opportunities for students. She summarized the
three main attributes of discovery learning as follows: a) It engages stu- Two classes of university students enrolled in the subjects Principles
dents into exploration and problem solving where they create, integrate, of Teaching II were selected for the conduct of this experimental study.
and generalize knowledge; b) Activities are student-driven in which the Each class is composed of 40 students. During the experiment phase, only
students determine the sequence and frequency; and c) Activities pro- 25 pairs of students with comparable academic standing were randomly
vided to students encourage the integration of their new knowledge into selected and from whom the relevant data on their performance in
their existing knowledge. In discovery learning, a) learning is considered demonstration teaching were collected, analyzed, and compared. The
active rather than passive; b) learning is process-based rather than students who were not selected as respondents of the study underwent
fact-based; c) failure is important; d) feedback is necessary; and under- the same teaching and learning process and accomplished the re-
standing is deeper (Castronova, 2002). These concepts pertaining to quirements of the performance task.
discovery learning imply that teachers’ role is not to teach information by Moreover, five experts from the departments of mathematics educa-
rote learning, but to facilitate the learning process (McLeod, 2019). tion and professional education were tapped as evaluators. The video-
Therefore, teachers must design lessons that enable students to discover taped demonstration teachings of the respondents were evaluated in
the connections and establish the relationship between bits of terms of the parameters indicated in the rubric which include variety and
information. pacing of instruction, organization, presentation skills, clarity of content,
The theories discussed above were emphasized in this study through content knowledge, instructor-student interaction, questioning and
the different stages of the design thinking process with the primary reacting techniques/handling students’ responses, use of relevant
purpose of accomplishing the goal of the performance task provided to learning materials, technology integration, voice, and grooming and
the respondents. The interaction of the respondents with academic attire.

4
E.M. Albay, D.V. Eisma Social Sciences & Humanities Open 3 (2021) 100116

2.3. Experimental manipulations or interventions The ideate stage followed where they went back to the teachers and
interviewed them purposely to gather important ideas and strategies to
During the first day of classes for the subject Principles of Teaching II, be incorporated in the different parts of the lesson plan. The respondents
the students were oriented about the course requirements. One of which were also provided with various instructional strategies which they can
was to conduct demonstration teachings as the required output for the use in the different phases of instruction – motivation, lesson proper,
performance task assessment provided at the middle of the semester. The processing, deepening, and generalizing or synthesizing. Learning ma-
two classes were also informed to undergo a 16-h training on instruc- terials and resources that are vital in providing the target students in the
tional methodologies, including the design thinking method, but on respondents’ demonstration teaching with meaningful learning experi-
different schedules. ences were also suggested by the teachers whom they interviewed. In
Prior to discussing about the performance task, the experimental addition, various students in the junior high school level in the university
group went through a 16-h training-workshop on design thinking as an and nearby secondary schools were surveyed by the respondents about
instructional methodology in mathematics. Being equipped with the es- their preferences when it comes to teaching styles, teacher-students
sentials of design thinking through a three-day rigorous national training interaction, and learning activities which can make them more
and having served as a trainer on design thinking for one year, the cor- engaged into what they are learning. In this phase, the experimental
responding researcher served as the lecturer during the training- group utilized the rose-thorn-bud, fishbowl discussion, matching
workshop. The experimental group were made familiar with the con- improvement, and visual brainstorming.
cepts underpinning design thinking and its five stages. Also, various The actual writing of the lesson plan occurred inside the classroom
design thinking methods, empathy techniques, insight-gathering and during their class schedule. This is known as the prototype stage where
idea-generation strategies, and rapid prototyping and testing mecha- the respondents integrated all the ideas generated through their en-
nisms were discussed and experienced by the respondents. The experi- gagements with various groups of people identified in the first three
mental group was provided with actual experiences on how to implement stages. The written lesson plans were the expected prototype which were
various design thinking methods such as fishbowl discussion, empathy evaluated by the researchers. Also, the respondents were allowed to have
maps, visual brainstorming, kuwentuhan or story-telling, roses-thorn-bud, their lesson plans be scrutinized by teachers whom they consulted during
matching improvements, prototype types, marshmallow tower challenge, the first stages of the design thinking process.
and I like, I wish, What If. Finally, in the test stage, the experimental group tried-out the
After the training workshop, the performance task was distributed to learning activities that they have integrated in their lesson plans
the two classes. Prior to the conduct of the demonstration teaching, the involving a small group of junior high school students through a practice
two respondents were given one week, equivalent to five school days, to demonstration teaching. From the results of the evaluation of the lesson
develop a detailed and learner-centered lesson plan on the topic assigned plan by experts and the researcher, and considering the experiences of
to them. The topics were taken from the list of third and fourth quarter the selected small group of students during the said practice demon-
topics in junior high school mathematics form the approved mathematics stration teaching, the experimental group integrated necessary revisions
curriculum for junior high school in the Philippines. The same set of and consequently finalized their lesson plans. Also, in this stage, the
topics was given to both the experimental and control groups. Topics and prototypes of the instructional materials for the actual demonstration
principles relevant to writing lesson plans such as writing the lesson teaching were used, tested, and evaluated by the students. Their ideas
objectives, principles relevant to delivering instruction, selection and use and suggestions were gathered through relevant design thinking methods
of instructional methodologies and materials, assessment principles and including the fishbowl discussion, empathy maps, kuwentuhan or story-
strategies, and assignment, were already discussed during their Princi- telling, rose-thorn-bud, visual brainstorming, prototype types, and I
ples of Teaching I subject and in the first few weeks of the Principles of like, I wish, What If were employed.
Teaching II subject. The control group, on the other hand, was instructed to work inside
The students from the experimental group applied the design thinking the classroom during their class schedule for five days. The school library
process as presented in Section 1.1.1 in developing their lesson plans. also served as their workplace where they utilized resources that are
They consulted mathematics teachers who are teaching in the junior high available and relevant, both print and online references, to develop the
school level, gathered insights from mathematics experts, solicited ideas detailed lesson plan on the topic assigned to them. They were also pro-
from teachers of professional education subjects, interviewed students vided freedom to seek guidance from and the expertise of mathematics
enrolled in the grade level that corresponds to the topic assigned to them and professional education teachers in terms of the correctness of the
and students who are enrolled in higher grade levels, and surveyed re- concepts indicated in the lesson plan, sufficiency of activities provided,
sources and materials in the community of the students which they can and appropriateness of the instructional materials indicated in the plan to
use in developing relevant instructional materials for discussion and facilitate the delivery of discussion. However, the consultation is not
activities. The respondents worked with the above-mentioned group of mandatory and required unlike in the case of the experimental group.
people in each phase of the design thinking process during the pre- and In the entire process of lesson planning, the researchers provided
post-writing stages of their respective lesson plans. It should be noted relevant guidance and instructions, gave feedbacks, and checked and
that the students involved in the design thinking process were not the approved the outputs of the respondents.
actual students who served as learners or audiences during the demon- The following week was given to the respondents to prepare all the
stration teaching. teaching materials needed for the demonstration teaching. The experi-
In the empathize phase, the experimental group gained an under- mental group continued to consult with the people who were involved
standing about the essentials, critical aspects, and the preparation needed during the lesson planning stage to ensure that each detail in the lesson
for an effective demonstration teaching from new and seasoned teachers. plan was implemented carefully and correctly in the creation of teaching
The respondents were made to understand through their engagement and learning materials. The control group, on the other hand, worked
with various teachers that an important component of an effective following the same procedures applied in the previous week.
demonstration teaching is a well-written lesson plan. This was facilitated After all the needed instructional materials were prepared, the re-
through the implementation of various design thinking methods such as spondents from both groups were instructed to deliver their demon-
fishbowl discussion, kuwentuhan or story-telling, and empathy maps. stration teaching in the junior high school class from their community
In the define stage, the respondents were able to write their design which they have selected. Proper protocols were observed and practiced
challenge statement which was to construct a well-designed learner- by both the experimental group and the control group to ensure suc-
centered lesson plan for the topic assigned to them. The matching cessful accomplishment of the performance task.
improvement method helped in this phase of the task. All demonstration teachings by the experimental group and the

5
E.M. Albay, D.V. Eisma Social Sciences & Humanities Open 3 (2021) 100116

control group were video recorded. Copies of the video recordings of the Table 1
identified respondents were given to five experts to evaluate the per- Mean scores of the respondents in the performance task.
formances of the groups. Score Range Mean Score
The researchers purposively did not inform the respondents about the
Experimental Group 39.92  2.36 39.86
conduct of the experimental study to avoid any situations that may affect Control Group 28.72  4.51 28.72
the credibility of the data.

Table 2
2.4. Analysis of data
Test of difference on the performances of the experimental group and control
group.
The scores of the two groups of respondents in demonstration
Degrees of Computed t- p-
teaching were managed and analyzed using means. These scores were
freedom value value
also subjected to pre-processing procedures to establish that these satisfy
Performance task (Demonstration 36.221 10.992 0.000
relevant assumptions related to significant outliers, normality of the
teaching)
distribution, and homogeneity of variance. Fig. 1 below shows the box-
plot of the respondents’ scores in demonstration teaching.
Through inspection of the boxplot, no outliers were noted for the average scores of 39.86 points as compared to the mean scores recorded
scores in demonstration teaching of the experimental and control groups. by the control group equivalent to 28.72 points. The experimental
These scores were established as normally distributed according to group’s mean score in the performance task is 11.20  1.02 points higher
Shapiro-Wilk’s test (p > .05). than the control group’s mean score. The individual scores of the re-
However, the assumption of homogeneity of variances was violated spondents for each group further verifies that the experimental group
as assessed by Levene’s test for equality of variances, p
0.000. There- performed better (39.92  2.36) in the given performance task than the
fore, the modified t-test which is commonly referred to as unequal var- control group (28.72  4.51).
iances t-test or Welch t-test was used to report the findings on the
differences in the performances of the experimental group and control 3.2. Comparison between the groups’ performances
group.
Aside from determining the performances of the two groups in the
3. Results and discussion performance task assessment, their scores were also subjected to further
statistical analysis to test the claim that the integration of the design
3.1. Performances of the two groups in lesson planning thinking process can lead to a significantly better performance in the
given performance task. For this purpose, the modified t-test which is
The video-taped demonstration teachings of the respondents from commonly referred to as unequal variances t-test or Welch t-test was used
both the control group and the experimental group were evaluated by to report the findings. The results, as summarized in Table 2, present
experts. Each group is composed of 25 respondents. The ratings they information in terms of the degrees of freedom, computed t-value, and p-
obtained from the evaluation defined the performances of the groups in value between scores.
the performance task as reflected in Table 1. From the table, it is clear that the result of the comparative analysis
While both groups received equal amount of instructional time for the done to the demonstration teaching scores of the two groups indicates
discussions of key concepts and skills needed in lesson planning, that there is a statistically significant difference in the average scores
including the assessment of their learning, they recorded different levels between the control group and the experimental group, t(36.221) ¼
of performances in the outputs of the performance task assessment. 10.992, p
0.000. Thus, the experimental group scored significantly
Evidently, the experimental group obtained higher average scores from higher in the different indicators in the demonstration teaching. These
the experts. are variety and pacing of instruction, organization, presentation skills,
From the experts’ evaluations, the experimental group posted higher clarity of content, content knowledge, instructor-student interaction,
levels of performances in demonstration teaching as indicated in their questioning and reacting techniques/handling students’ responses, use of

Fig. 1. Boxplot for demonstration teaching scores.

6
E.M. Albay, D.V. Eisma Social Sciences & Humanities Open 3 (2021) 100116

relevant learning materials, technology integration, voice, and grooming The experimental group also garnered higher scores for their effective
and attire. Further, it can be recalled that the experimental group questioning skills and for employing various techniques for handling
recorded a score range of 39.92  2.36, which is 11.20  1.02 points students’ responses. The evaluators indicated higher scores for the
higher than the control group’s 28.72  4.51 score range. experimental group on the following sub-indicators – varying the type of
For variety and pacing of instruction, the experimental group question, rephrasing, sequencing questions logically, asking questions
consistently showed evident practices on utilizing varied and active that require abstract thinking, asking open-ended questions, directing
instructional strategies, providing adequate wait time when asking question to all students to involve as many as possible, calling on non-
questions and sufficient time to complete in-class assignments, prevent- volunteers, allowing for sufficient wait time, assessing comprehension,
ing specific students from dominating activities/discussion, guiding the and asking non-directed questions. The respondents also responded
direction of the discussion, mediating conflict or differences of opinions, professionally to students’ responses and queries. They constantly pro-
providing explicit instructions for active learning tasks, explaining how vided feedback about the correctness or incorrectness of a response;
learning tasks will be evaluated, and providing opportunities for students responded to wrong answers constructively; gave an appropriate praise
to practice what they have learned. to high quality responses; provided follow up questions; redirected
In terms of organization, the experimental group presented and fol- questions, or if necessary, followed up a student’s response with related
lowed an outline or organization for the class session, ensured all the questions; asked probing questions when student answers are incomplete
materials and equipment needed are available and are placed strategi- rephrased unclear questions; showed non-verbal encouragement;
cally on the table, used effective transitions between class topics, encouraged learners to ask questions; and refrained from answering their
conveyed the purpose of each class activity or assignment, guided non- own questions.
participating students into activities/discussion, summarized lessons or Furthermore, the instructional materials of the experimental group
concepts periodically throughout and at the end of the class or prompted are more relevant, varied, creative, and innovative which effectively
students to do so, and completed the scheduled topics on time. influenced the level of engagement and participation of their students as
Moreover, the experimental group outperformed the control group compared to those prepared by the members of the control group based
along presentation skills. Consistently, the sufficient guidance provided on the scores obtained by the groups in this indicator. Evidently, ac-
by the experts, teachers, and the insights collected from different age cording to the evaluators, the instructional materials of the experimental
groups of students facilitated the experimental group to gain confidence group employed relevant design principles that provided a positive visual
in delivering the lesson. Therefore, members of the experimental group impact to the students, therefore, sustaining the students’ focus and
maintained eye contact with the students throughout the class instruc- attention throughout the discussion. The effective incorporation and
tional time, employed presentation styles that facilitated note-taking, integration of a variety of instructional technologies, both real-world
used positive and appropriate humour, incorporated various instruc- tools and digital technologies, also contributed to providing the stu-
tional supports, responded effectively to changes in student attentive- dents of the experimental group with meaningful learning environment
ness, and provided materials that are easy to follow. and experiences.
Additionally, the experimental group also exhibited clarity of content Lastly, the experimental group also received a more favorable feed-
in their performance of the demonstration teaching. They explained back from the evaluators in terms of voice, grooming, and attire. Because
clearly new terms and concepts, illustrated or repeated complex infor- they collaborated with mathematics teachers and teachers teaching
mation, used examples to explain content, highlighted explicit state- professional subjects, they were provided with techniques to communi-
ments drawing student attention to key ideas, periodically paused during cate audibly and clearly and to vary pace and tone to keep students alert.
explanations to ask and answer questions, and related new ideas to According to the respondents in the experimental group, the teachers
familiar concepts. whom they worked with also provided them with grooming tips and have
Along content knowledge, the respondents of the experimental group required them to have their attire be approved by them.
demonstrated a higher level of mastery of the subject. The respondents Indeed, the current study provides a scientific evidence that the
used statements and explanations that are within the standards of implementation of the design thinking principles in the teaching and
mathematics, incorporated current research in the field, presented learning process, particularly in the aspect of performance task assess-
divergent viewpoints, and communicated the reasoning process behind ment, can help develop students’ creativity through empathy, collabo-
operations and/or concepts. As noted by the evaluators, there are man- ration, and non-linear problem solving (Beckman & Barry, 2007; Cooper
ifestations of content mastery by the experimental group as shown in the et al., 2009; Melles et al., 2012; Carlgren, Liedtka, 2014; Brenner et al.,
continuous flow of discussion and smooth transitions from one concept to 2016; H€ager & Uflacker, 2016; Rauth, & Elmquist, 2016; Dolata &
the next and from one activity to the other. They were able to explain the Schwabe, 2016, pp. 67–83; Ewin et al., 2017; Dam & Teo, 2019). The use
relevance of the current topic to other topics in mathematics and to other of design thinking principles in the classroom, according to Şener et al.
disciplines. Some of the respondents even shared findings from re- (2015) can also contribute to the development of creative thinking skills.
searches that show recent trends and development on the topic they have Evidently, the members of the experimental group consistently satisfied
covered. the indicators involved in the evaluation of their required output for the
Another notable aspect of the experimental group’s performances, performance task. While both the control and experimental groups were
according to the evaluators, was their utilization of relevant and varied guided by the same task and rubric, the results ascertained that the
strategies implemented to establish and maintain a favorable teacher- experimental group showed a remarkably better performance in all the
students interaction. Consequently, the group obtained higher ratings indicators of the rubrics.
for this indicator from the evaluators. The following gestures and prac- The implementation of the design thinking process in the perfor-
tices are present and consistently practiced by the experimental group - mance task assessment, therefore, facilitated the experimental group in
attend respectfully to student comprehension or puzzlement, ask ques- the acquisition of relevant insights, objects, ideas, and systems (Goldman
tions of students that challenge them to think more deeply, invite student & Kabayadondo, 2016, pp. 21–37) which form the foundations in
participation and comments, incorporate student responses when framing their strategies for the demonstration teaching. Because design
appropriate, encourage students to respond to their peers throughout the thinking is user-centric, the effective collaboration between the re-
discussions, treat students with respect, use positive reinforcement to spondents in the experimental group and the students, teachers, and the
encourage student participation and intellectual risk-taking, encourage learning environment through the implementation of various design
students to interact civilly/respectfully with each other, and address thinking methods led the former to gain understanding of the needs and
potentially disruptive behaviours before they impact learning characteristics of students, collect insights from their experiences and the
environment. experiences of the teachers, conduct numerous brainstorming sessions

7
E.M. Albay, D.V. Eisma Social Sciences & Humanities Open 3 (2021) 100116

with the teachers and professionals to generate ideas, and implement performance of the task with meaningful learning experiences and a 21st
varied and multiple approaches and strategies in accomplishing the century learning environment that is active, engaging, interactive, and
outputs indicated in the performance task assessment (Brown & Katz, learner-centered.
2011; Stevens, 2019); Jordan & Lande, 2016; Feland, Cockayne, & Leifer, Considering the demands of the 21st century learning environment, it
2004; Carroll et al., 2010; Suri & Howard, 2006; Dam & Teo, 2019). is a strong challenge for teachers to equip students with appropriate
Moreover, the performance of the experimental group in the perfor- competencies. Thus, teachers must transition from transferring pieces of
mance task also indicates that design thinking can provide a significant information to developing students’ potential through the implementa-
positive impact in facilitating a creative 21st century classroom that tion of instructional methodologies aligned with the principles of
sufficiently address the Philippines’ RA 10533 and the Policy Guidelines constructivism. This means that students should be provided with
on the K to 12 Basic Education Program (DepEd Order No. 21, s. 2019). learning experiences that allow reflection, interpretation of different
Considering also that the output of the performance task was developed information, and effective utilization of this information in producing the
based on the insights gathered from students, teachers, and professionals, required output of a learning task. Following the principles of the design
the experimental group through fishbowl discussion, kuwentuhan or thinking process provides appropriate support for teachers to facilitate a
story-telling, empathy maps, visual brainstorming, and rose-thorn-bud constructivist approach to teaching and learning that meets the criteria
was able to incorporate the students varied background through the for effective 21st century learning. The integration of the stages of the
careful selection of instructional strategies and in planning and designing design thinking process in the different aspects of the teaching and
of activities and materials. The small-group testing allowed the experi- learning process can enable students to learn necessary skills such as
mental group to identify areas of the learning materials and activities that collaboration, critical thinking, communication, and creativity while
need to be improved or modified as a result of the design thinking aiming to satisfactorily accomplish the requirements of the given task.
methods employed such as fishbowl discussion, empathy maps, visual From the results of this study, it is ascertained that the design thinking
brainstorming, kuwentuhan or story-telling, roses-thorn-bud, prototype process has a promising and encouraging impact to teaching and
types, and I like, I wish, What If. Also, the expertise and experiences of learning. The use of design thinking in the classroom can empower stu-
the teachers whom they collaborated with allowed the experimental dents to deliver creative outputs in various projects and performance task
group to consider relevant principles, guidelines, and policies that assessment. Moreover, design thinking can also help build a more
enabled them to refine their lesson plans and master relevant skills in favorable teacher-students interaction. However, teachers need a strong
lesson presentation and classroom management. guiding framework and appropriate support towards building confidence
The findings of this study are consistent with the results of the and expertise in employing design thinking in their teaching practices.
experimental studies conducted by Ke (2014), Şener et al. (2015), Tsai Also, there is a need to explore on the other applications of the design
(2015), Mentzer et al. (2015), Yang et al. (2016), Van de Grift and Kroeze thinking process in education which can be analyzed and established
(2016), Dolata and Schwabe (2016, pp. 67–83), and Simon and Cox through further research. Future researchers may look into other tech-
(2019) which state that the experimental group, which utilized the niques and strategies by which the design thinking process and methods
design thinking process, performed significantly better than the com- can be applied in improving educational practices.
parison group.
Funding
4. Conclusion
This work was supported by the Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State
The implementation of the design thinking process in the preparation University and was reflected in the university’s Work and Financial Plan
and conduct of the demonstration teaching have provided learning op- 2018 and 2019.
portunities for the experimental group to acquire and implement relevant
principles in lesson planning and demonstration teaching, and develop Declaration of competing interest
necessary competencies and skills in writing, planning, and designing
instructional activities, learning and teaching materials, and delivering The authors declare that he has no known competing financial in-
lessons as planned. The stages of design thinking which prompted the terests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
experimental group to collaborate with students, teachers, and other the work reported in this paper.
people in the community introduced them to various important aspects of
lesson planning. Also, the implementation of various design thinking Acknowledgment
methods assisted the experimental group to attain sufficient under-
standing of the needs and characteristics of students, collect meaningful The accomplishment of this research study was made possible
insights from the experiences of the students and the experiences of the through the consistent and strong support of the Don Mariano Marcos
teachers, conduct numerous brainstorming sessions with the students, Memorial State University administrators and officials headed by Presi-
teachers, and professionals to gather ideas to enhance the quality of the dent Dr. Jaime I. Manuel Jr., SLUC research officials, College of Arts and
written lesson plans and to help the experimental group in developing the Sciences family, the respondents, experts and evaluators, friends, and to
necessary skills needed for an effective demonstration teaching, and God Almighty.
implement varied and multiple approaches and strategies in accom- Our sincerest gratitude is expressed for our family and friends whose
plishing the outputs indicated in the performance task assessment. This love and support continue to motivate us to pursue scientific studies.
enabled the delivery of an interactive and engaging demonstration
teaching by the members of the experimental group. Therefore, the
References
design thinking process is contributory to the creative and innovative
outputs and outstanding performance of the experimental group hence Albay, E. M. (2019). Analyzing the effects of the problem solving approach to the
leading to a significantly better performance. performance and attitude of first year university students. Social Sciences &
Humanities Open, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2019.100006, 100006.
With the significant effects demonstrated and discussed herein, the
Andersen, H. V., & Pitk€anen, K. (2019). Empowering educators by developing
current study provides evidences that the design thinking process can professional practice in digital fabrication and design thinking. International Journal
facilitate the selection and design of instructional materials, teaching and of Child-Computer Interaction, 21, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/
learning strategies, assessment methods, and tools that are consistent j.ijcci.2019.03.001Get.rights and content
Beckman, S. L., & Barry, M. (2007). Innovation as a learning process: Embedding design
with the curriculum and learning objectives. Also, the design thinking thinking. California Management Review, 50(1), 25–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/
process enabled the respondents to provide their students during the 41166415

8
E.M. Albay, D.V. Eisma Social Sciences & Humanities Open 3 (2021) 100116

Brenner, W., Uebernickel, F., & Abrell, T. (2016). Design thinking as mindset, process, Krippendorff, K. (2006). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. Boca Raton. FL:
and toolbox. In W. Brenner, & F. Uebernickel (Eds.), Design thinking for innovation. CRC Press.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26100-3_1. Springer, Cham. Laferriere, R., Engeler, B., & Rixon, A. (2019). Addressing cognitive challenges in
Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2011). Change by design. Journal of Product Innovation Management, applying design thinking for opportunity discovery: Reflections from a design
28(3), 381–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00806.x thinking teaching team. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 5(4),
Büyükduman, I., _ & Şirin, S. (2010). Learning portfolio (LP) to enhance constructivism and 383–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-015-0237-2
student autonomy. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 3, 55–61. https://doi.org/ Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.012 Cambridge university press.
Cahn, P. S., Bzowyckyj, A., Collins, L., Dow, A., Goodell, K., Johnson, A. F., et al. (2016). Liedtka, J. (2015). Perspective: Linking design thinking with innovation outcomes
A design thinking approach to evaluating interprofessional education. Journal of through cognitive bias reduction. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(6),
Interprofessional Care, 30(3), 378–380. https://doi.org/10.3109/ 925–938. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12163
13561820.2015.1122582 Lindgaard, K., & Wesselius, H. (2017). Once more, with feeling: Design thinking and
Carlgren, L., Rauth, I., & Elmquist, M. (2016). Framing design thinking: The concept in embodied cognition. She ji: The journal of design, Economics, and Innovation, 3(2),
idea and enactment. Creativity and Innovation Management, 25(1), 38–57. https:// 83–92.
doi.org/10.1111/caim.12153 Luka, I. (2014). Design thinking in pedagogy. Journal of Education, Culture and Society, (2),
Carroll, M., Goldman, S., Britos, L., Koh, J., Royalty, A., & Hornstein, M. (2010). 63–74.
Destination, imagination and the fires within: Design thinking in a middle school Lund, A. (2011). A case study of applying design thinking at Microsoft corporation |
classroom. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 29(1), 37–53. https:// human centered design & engineering. http://www.hcde.washington.edu/nav-cours
doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2010.01632.x es/521/win11/mar11. (Accessed 11 February 2020).
Castronova, J. A. (2002). Discovery learning for the 21st century: What is it and how does McKilligan, S., Fila, N., Rover, D., & Mina, M. (2017). Design thinking as a catalyst for
it compare to traditional learning in effectiveness in the 21st century. Action research changing teaching and learning practices in engineering. In 2017 IEEE Frontiers in
exchange, 1(1), 1–12. Education Conference (FIE). https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2017.8190479
Çeviker-Çınar, G., Mura, G., & Demirba g-Kaplan, M. (2017). Design thinking: A new road McLeod, S. A. (2019). Bruner - learning theory in education. Simply Psychology. https
map in business education. The Design Journal, 20(sup1), S977–S987. https://doi.org/ ://www.simplypsychology.org/bruner.html.
10.1080/14606925.2017.1353042 Melles, G., Howard, Z., & Thompson-Whiteside, S. (2012). Teaching design thinking:
Chou, D. C. (2018). Applying design thinking method to social entrepreneurship project. Expanding horizons in design education. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31,
Computer Standards & Interfaces, 55, 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 162–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.035
j.csi.2017.05.001 Mentzer, N., Becker, K., & Sutton, M. (2015). Engineering design thinking: High school
Cooper, R., Junginger, S., & Lockwood, T. (2009). Design thinking and design students’ performance and knowledge. Journal of Engineering Education, 104(4),
management: A research and practice perspective. Design Management Review, 20(2), 417–432. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20105
46–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1948-7169.2009.00007.x Mosely, G., Wright, N., & Wrigley, C. (2018). Facilitating design thinking: A comparison
Dalsgaard, P. (2014). Pragmatism and design thinking. International Journal of Design, of design expertise. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27, 177–189. https://doi.org/
8(1), 143–155. 10.1016/j.tsc.2018.02.004
Dam, R. F., & Teo, Y. S. (2019). 5 stages in the design thinking process. https://www.inter Northern Illinois University Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning. (2012).
action-design.org/literature/article/5-stages-in-the-design-thinking-process. Situated learning. In Instructional guide for university faculty and teaching assistants.
(Accessed 10 February 2020). Retrieved from http://www.niu.edu/citl/resources/guide/instructional-guide.
Daniel, A. D. (2016). Fostering an entrepreneurial mindset by using a design thinking Plattner, H. (2011). An introduction to design thinking PROCESS GUIDE [online]. Retrieved
approach in entrepreneurship education. Industry and Higher Education, 30(3), February 10, 2020, from https://dschool.%20stanford%
215–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422216653195 20edu/groups/designresources/wiki/36873/attachments/74b3d.%
Davis, B., & Summers, M. (2015). Applying dale’s cone of experience to increase learning and 20ModeGuideBOOTCAMP2010%20L.pdf.
retention: A study of student learning in a foundational leadership course. In engineering Republic Act No 10533. (2013). https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2013/05/15/rep
leaders conference 2014 on engineering education (Vol. 2015). Hamad bin Khalifa ublic-act-no-10533/. (Accessed 12 February 2020).
University Press (HBKU Press. Retna, K. S. (2016). Thinking about “design thinking”: A study of teacher experiences.
Deitte, L. A., & Omary, R. A. (2019). The power of design thinking in medical education. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36(sup1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Academic Radiology, 26(10), 1417–1420. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 02188791.2015.1005049
j.acra.2019.02.012 Savvas, A. (2012). SAP focuses on product ’desirability’ through design to lure customers –
Do 021 s. (2019). Policy guidelines on the K to 12 basic education Program (2019, August ComputerworldUK.com.
22). Retrieved February 12, 2020, from https://www.deped.gov.ph/2019/08/22/ Scheer, A., Noweski, C., & Meinel, C. (2012). Transforming constructivist learning into
august-22-2019-do-021-s-2019-policy-guidelines-on-the-k-to-12-basic-education-p action: Design thinking in education. Design and Technology Education: International
rogram/. Journal, 17(3).
Dolata, M., & Schwabe, G. (2016). Design thinking in IS research projects. In design thinking Şener, N., Türk, C., & Taş, E. (2015). Improving science attitude and creative thinking
for innovation. Cham: Springer. through science education project: A design, implementation and assessment. Journal
Ewin, N., Luck, J., Chugh, R., & Jarvis, J. (2017). Rethinking project management of Education and Training Studies, 3(4), 57–67. https://doi.org/10.11114/
education: A humanistic approach based on design thinking. Procedia Computer jets.v3i4.771
Science, 121, 503–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.067 Simon, L. M., & Cox, D. C. (2019). The role of prototyping in mathematical design
Fani, T., & Ghaemi, F. (2011). Implications of vygotsky’s zone of proximal development thinking. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 56. https://doi.org/10.1016/
(ZPD) in teacher education: ZPTD and self-scaffolding. Procedia-Social and Behavioral j.jmathb.2019.100724, 100724.
Sciences, 29, 1549–1554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.396 Sonalkar, N., Mabogunje, A., Pai, G., Krishnan, A., & Roth, B. (2016). Diagnostics for
Feland, J. M., Leifer, L. J., & Cockayne, W. R. (2004). Comprehensive design engineering: design thinking teams. In Design thinking research (pp. 35–51). Cham: Springer.
Designers taking responsibility. International Journal of Engineering Education, 20(3), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19641-1_4.
416–423. Stevens, E. (2019). What is design thinking? A comprehensive beginner’s guide. Retrieved
Goldman, S., & Kabayadondo, Z. (2016). Taking design thinking to school: How the February 10, 2020, from https://careerfoundry.com/en/blog/ux-design/what-is-de
technology of design can transform teachers, learners, and classrooms. In Taking Design sign-thinking-everything-you-need-to-know-to-get-started/.
Thinking to School. Routledge. Suri, J. F., & Howard, S. G. (2006). Going deeper, seeing further: Enhancing ethnographic
Goodyear, P. (2015). Teaching as design. Herdsa review of higher education, 2(2), 27–50. interpretations to reveal more meaningful opportunities for design. Journal of
Gore, J., Lloyd, A., Smith, M., Bowe, J., Ellis, H., & Lubans, D. (2017). Effects of Advertising Research, 46(3), 246–250. https://doi.org/10.2501/S0021849906060363
professional development on the quality of teaching: Results from a randomised Thomke, S., & Feinberg, B. (2010). Design thinking and innovation at apple. Harvard
controlled trial of Quality Teaching Rounds. Teaching and Teacher Education, 68, Business School, 9-609-066.
99–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.08.007 Timperley, H., & Alton-Lee, A. (2008). Reframing teacher professional learning: An
H€
ager, F., & Uflacker, M. (2016). Time management practice in educational design alternative policy approach to strengthening valued outcomes for diverse learners.
thinking projects. DS 85-2. Proceedings of NordDesign, ume 2, 319–328. Trondheim, Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 328–369. https://doi.org/10.3102/
Norway, 10th-12th August 2016. 0091732X07308968
Henriksen, D., Richardson, C., & Mehta, R. (2017). Design thinking: A creative approach Tsai, C. W. (2015). Investigating the effects of web-mediated design thinking and co-
to educational problems of practice. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 26, 140–153. regulated learning on developing students’ computing skills in a blended course.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.10.001 Universal Access in the Information Society, 14(2), 295–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Jordan, S., & Lande, M. (2016). Additive innovation in design thinking and making. s10209-015-0401-8
International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(3), 1438–1444. Vanada, D. I. (2014). Practically creative: The role of design thinking as an improved
Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Benjamin, W., & Hong, H. Y. (2015). Technological pedagogical paradigm for 21st century art education. Techne serien-Forskning i Sl€ojdpedagogik och
content knowledge (TPACK) and design thinking: A framework to support ICT lesson Sl€ojdvetenskap, 21(2).
design for 21st century learning. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(3), Van de Grift, T. C., & Kroeze, R. (2016). Design thinking as a tool for interdisciplinary
535–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-015-0237-2 education in health care. Academic Medicine, 91(9), 1234–1238. https://doi.org/
Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2001). Experiential learning theory: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001195
Previous research and new directions. Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive Yang, K. K., Lee, L., Hong, Z. R., & Lin, H. S. (2016). Investigation of effective strategies
styles, 1(8), 227–247. for developing creative science thinking. International Journal of Science Education,
38(13), 2133–2151. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1230685