To explore the role of design thinking in contemporary computer literacy education, this study aimed to examine the relationship between young students’ design thinking disposition and their computer programming self-efficacy. To assess students’ design thinking disposition, this study developed the Design Thinking Disposition Scale (DTDS) with a sample of 350 junior high school students who had computer programming experience in a STEAM course. A principle axis factor analysis with the promax rotation method was used to verify the DTDS’s construct under the four dimensions: empathize, define, ideate and prototype. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability was .90 for the overall scale. Correlation analyses results showed that all the four dimensions were significantly correlated with computer programming self-efficacy assessed by CPSES. A significant regression model was found in which the three factors, ideate, prototype and define, significantly predicted the overall computer programming self-efficacy. Meanwhile, except for the ideate subscale, no gender difference was found in the young students’ design thinking dispositions. The students’ self-directed programming learning experience was shown to benefit their design thinking disposition. The DTDS can be applied to design-thinking-embedded computer literacy curricula such as makers, STEAM, or robotics education. Several further studies are also suggested.
AdamsC.NashJ. (2016).
Exploring design thinking practices in evaluation. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation,
12(26), 12–17.
2.
AnaniadouK.ClaroM. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD Countries.
OECD Publishing.
3.
BanduraA. (1977).
Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,
84(2), 191–215.
4.
BerlandM.LeeV. R. (2011).
Collaborative strategic board games as a site for distributed computational thinking. International Journal of Game-Based Learning,
1(2), 65–81. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijgbl.2011040105
5.
Boy, G. A. (2013, August). From STEM to STEAM: Toward a human-centered education, creativity & learning thinking. Paper presented at the 31st European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics, Toulouse, France.
6.
BrownT. J. (2008, June).
Design thinking. Harvard Business Review,
86, 84–92.
7.
BrownT. J.KuratkoD. F. (2015).
The impact of design and innovation on the future of education. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,
9(2), 147–151. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000010
8.
BrownT. J.WyattJ. (2010).
Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review,
8, 30–35.
9.
ChanY. H. (2003).
Biostatistics 101: Data presentation. Singapore Medical Journal,
44(6), 280–285.
10.
CookK. L.BushS. 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
11.
CookK. L.BushS. B.CoxR. (2017).
From STEM to STEAM: Incorporating the arts in roller coaster engineering. Science and Children,
54(6), 86–93.
DorstK.Cross.N. (2001).
Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies,
22(5), 425–437.
14.
FloridaR. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life.
Basic Books.
15.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981).
Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,
18(1), 39–50.
16.
HairJ. F.RisherJ. J.SarstedtM.RingleC. M. (2019).
When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review,
31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
17.
HenriksenD.RichardsonC.MehtaR. (2017).
Design thinking: A creative approach to educational problems of practice.Thinking Skills and Creativity,
26, 140–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.10.001
18.
KangasK.Seitamaa-HakkarainenP.HakkarainenK. (2013).
Design thinking in elementary students’ collaborative lamp designing process.Design and Technology Education: An International Journal,
18(1), 30–43.
19.
KavakliM.GeroJ. (2002).
The structure of concurrent cognitive actions: A case study on novice and expert designers. Design Studies,
23, 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00021-7
20.
KohJ. H. L.ChiC. S.WongB.HongH-Y. (2015). Design thinking for education: Conceptions and applications in teaching and learning.
Singapore:
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-444-3
21.
MehmoodE.AbidA.FarooqM. S.NawazN. A. (2020).
Curriculum, teaching and learning, and assessments for introductory programming course. IEEE Access,
8, 125961–125981. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3008321
22.
MentzerN.BeckerK.SuttonM. (2015).
Engineering design thinking: High school students’ performance and knowledge. Journal of Engineering Education,
104(4), 417–432. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20105
23.
MicheliP.WilnerS. J. S.BhattiS. H.MuraM.BeverlandM. B. (2019).
Doing design thinking: Conceptual review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
36(2), 124–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12466
24.
Ministry of Education. (2016). The blue print of computer education.
Ministry of Education of Taiwan.
NoelL.LiubT. (2017).
Using design thinking to create a new education paradigm for elementary level children for higher student engagement and success.Design and Technology Education: An International Journal,
1(22), 501–512.
27.
OmerU.FarooqM. S.AbidA. (2020).
Cognitive learning analytics using assessment data and concept map: A framework-based approach for sustainability of programming courses. Sustainability,
12(17), 6990. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176990
28.
ParkH.McKilliganS. (2018). A systematic literature review for human-computer interaction and design thinking process integration. In: MarcusA.WangW. (Eds.), Design, user experience, and usability: Theory and practice. DUXU 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 10918), pp. 725–740.
Springer.
29.
ProudfootD.KayA. C.KovalC. Z. (2015).
A gender bias in the attribution of creativity: Archival and experimental evidence for the perceived association between masculinity and creative thinking.Psychological Science,
26(11), 1751–1761. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615598739
30.
RazzoukR.ShuteV. (2012).
What is design thinking and why is it important?Review of Educational Research,
82(3), 330–348. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457429
31.
Seitamaa-HakkarainenP.HakkarainenK. (2001).
Composition and construction in experts’ and novices’ weaving design. Design Studies,
22, 47–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(99)00038-1
32.
Stanford d.School. (2010). An introduction to design thinking PROCESS GUIDE.
Institute of Design at Stanford.
33.
StoltzfusG.NibbelinkB. L.VredenburgD.ThyrumE. (2011).
Gender, gender role, and creativity. Social Behavior and Personality,
39(3), 425–432. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2011.39.3.425
34.
TsaiC.-C.ChuangS. C.LiangJ.-C.TsaiM.-J. (2011).
Self-efficacy in internet-based learning environments: A literature review. Educational Technology & Society,
14(4), 222–240.
35.
TsaiM.-J.TsaiC.-C. (2010).
Junior high school students’ internet usage and self-efficacy: A re-examination of the gender gap. Computers & Education,
54(4), 1182–1192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.004
36.
TsaiM.-J.WangC.-Y.HsuP.-F. (2019).
Developing the Computer Programming Self-Efficacy Scale (CPSES) for computer literacy education. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
56(8), 1345–1360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117746747
37.
VanadaD. I. (2010).
Practically creative: the role of design thinking as an improved paradigm for 21st century art education. Techne Series A,
21(2), 21–33.
38.
van LaarE.van DeursenA. J. A. M.van DijkJ. A. G. M.de HaanJ. (2017).
The relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computers in Human Behavior,
72, 577–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010
39.
WangC.-Y.TsaiC.-C. (2018).
Understanding students’ conceptions of and approaches to learning in design. The International Journal of Design Education,
12(3), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.18848/2325-128X/CGP/v12i03/31-45
40.
WangC.-Y.TsaiM.-J. (2017).
Students’ self-efficacy and attitudes toward web-based recipe learning in Taiwan culinary education.The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher,
26(3-4), 193–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-017-0340-7
41.
WingJ. M. (2006).
Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM,
49(3), 33–35.
42.
Wu, Y.-J., Kiefer, S. M., & Chen, Y.-H. (2019). Relationships between learning strategies and self-efficacy: A cross-cultural comparison between Taiwan and the United States using latent class analysis. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2019.1566104
43.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.51
