Ortaöğretim Öğrencilerine Yönelik Tasarım Odaklı Düşünme Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik, Güvenirlik ve Değişmezlik Çalışmaları

Year 2025, Issue: 59, 113 - 129

Atilla Özdemir , Baran Dadakoğlu

https://doi.org/10.33418/education.1559434

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, lise öğrencilerinin tasarım odaklı düşünme (DT) becerilerine ilişkin algılarını değerlendirmek üzere Tasarım Odaklı Düşünme Becerileri Algı Ölçeği'ni (DTBAÖ) geliştirmek ve geçerliliğini sınamaktır. Bu çalışmada, nitel ve nicel yaklaşımları entegre ederek sağlam bir ölçek geliştirme süreci sağlamak için keşfedici sıralı karma yöntem tasarımı kullanılmıştır. Nitel aşamada, 9-12. sınıflarda öğrenim gören 15 lise öğrencisiyle empati, problem tanımlama, yaratıcı fikir üretme, prototip oluşturma, çözüm odaklılık ve ekip çalışması algılarını incelemek amacıyla yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yapılmıştır. Tematik analiz sonucunda, öğrenciler ekip çalışması ve empatiyi önemli bulurken, prototip oluşturma ve test etme süreçlerini yeterli deneyim eksikliği nedeniyle zorlayıcı olarak değerlendirmiştir. Bu bulgular ilk madde havuzunu geliştirmek için kullanılmıştır. Nicel aşamada, İç Anadolu Bölgesi'nden 208 öğrenci çalışmaya katılmıştır. Açıklayıcı Faktör Analizi (AFA) ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA), toplam varyansın %64’ünü açıklayan altı boyutlu bir yapıyı doğrulamıştır. Ölçek, yakınsak ve ayırt edici geçerliliğe sahip olduğunu, yüksek iç tutarlılık gösterdiğini (Cronbach’s α = 0.73-0.88; McDonald's ω = 0.77-0.91) ve cinsiyet ve sınıf düzeyleri arasında ölçüm değişmezliği sağladığını ortaya koymuştur. Ölçekteki puanlar 20 ila 100 arasında değişmekte olup, daha yüksek puanlar TOD becerilerine ilişkin daha güçlü bir algıyı yansıtmaktadır. Ölçek, bireysel ya da grup halinde uygulanabilir ve hem toplam hem de alt boyut puanları sunmaktadır. TODBAÖ, öğrencilerin yaratıcılık, iş birliği ve problem çözme gibi 21. yüzyıl becerilerine ilişkin içgörüler sunarak araştırmacılar ve eğitimciler için değerli bir ölçme aracı olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Öğrencilerin TOD algılarını değerlendirmeye yönelik bu standartlaştırılmış araç, TOD eğitimindeki kritik bir boşluğu gidermektedir. Gelecekteki araştırmalar, ölçeğin farklı öğrenci gruplarında nasıl kullanıldığına dair sonuçları ve dijital öğrenme ortamlarındaki uygulanabilirliğini inceleyebilir.

Keywords

Tasarım Odaklı Düşünme , Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik , Ortaöğretim Öğrencileri

Development of a Design Thinking Skills Perception Scale for High School Students: Validity, Reliability, and Invariance Studies

Abstract

This study aimed to develop and validate the Design Thinking Skills Perception Scale (DTSPS) to assess high school students' perceptions of their design thinking (DT) skills. An exploratory sequential mixed-methods design was adopted, integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches. In the qualitative phase, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 students (Grades 9–12) to explore their views on empathy, problem identification, creative ideation, prototyping, solution orientation, and teamwork. Thematic analysis revealed empathy and teamwork as essential, while prototyping and testing were challenging due to limited experience. These insights guided the initial item pool. In the quantitative phase, data were collected from 208 students in Central Anatolia. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses confirmed a six-dimensional structure, explaining 64% of the total variance. The scale demonstrated strong convergent and discriminant validity, high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .73–.88; McDonald’s ω = .77–.91), and measurement invariance across gender and grade levels. Scores range from 20 to 100, with higher scores indicating stronger DT skill perceptions. The scale can be administered individually or in groups, and provides both total and sub-dimension scores. The DTSPS is a reliable and valid instrument offering insights into students' 21st-century skills, including creativity, collaboration, and problem-solving. It addresses a critical gap in DT education by offering a standardized measure for high school students. The findings suggest that the scale can guide educators in supporting students’ development of DT competencies. Future research should validate the DTSPS in more diverse contexts and explore its integration into digital learning environments.

Keywords

Design Thinking , Validity and Reliability , High School Students

References

• Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49(2), 155–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294170
• Atabek, O. (2020). Adaptation of design self-efficacy scale into Turkish language, Turkish StudiesApplied Sciences, 15(1), 1-14. https://dx.doi.org/10.29228/TurkishStudies.40274
• Ayaz, N. (2015). The effect of the project-based learning approach on students’ academic achievements in a science lesson and their attitudes towards science lessons: A meta-analysis study (Publication No. 383512) [Masters’s thesis, Fırat University-Elâzığ]. Council of Higher Education National Thesis Centre.
• Aydemir, A., & Çetin, T. (2021). The effectiveness of products developed for the social studies course through the design thinking approach. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi.41(2).885-910. https://doi.org/10.17152/gefad.825049
• Becker, J. C. (2013). Landscape-level influences on community composition and ecosystem function in a large river ecosystem (Publication No. 3577776) [Doctoral dissertation, Texas State University-San Marcos]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
• Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
• Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
• Boni, A. A., Weingart, L. R., & Evenson, S. (2009). Innovation in an academic setting: Designing and leading a business through market-focused, interdisciplinary teams. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(3), 407-417. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.8.3.zqr407
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
• Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005
• Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. HarperBusiness.
• Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
• Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Development Outreach, 12(1), 29-43.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2017). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum (23. baskı). [Data analysis handbook for social sciences: Statistics, research design, SPSS applications and interpretation (23rd ed.)] Ankara: Pegem Yayınları.
• Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30-35.
• Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural Equation Modelling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
• Carroll, M., Goldman, S., Britos, L., Koh, J., Royalty, A., & Hornstein, M. (2010). Destination, imagination and the fires within: Design thinking in a middle school classroom. The International Journal of Art & Design Education, 29(1), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2010.01632.x
• Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit ındexes to lack of measurement ınvariance. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 14(3), 464-504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
• Chesson, D. (2017). Design thinker profile: Creating and validating a scale for measuring design thinking capabilities. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Antioch University.
• Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
• Chin, M., Chi, H., & Rowland, T. (2019). Exploring the impact of design thinking on the creative problem-solving abilities of middle school students. International Journal of Design, 13(2), 45-58.
• Cohen R.J., & Swerdlik M.E. (2022). Psychological testing and assessment (10th edition). Boston, McGraw-Hill Companies.
• Comrey, A.L., & Lee, H.B. (2013). A first course in factor analysis (2nd Edition), Psychology Press, Hove.
• Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson.
• Creswell, John W., Creswell, J. David. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches (5th ed.). Melbourne: SAGE Publications.
• Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları (3. Basım) [Multivariate statistics for social sciences SPSS and LISREL applications (3rd Edition)]. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Dam, R. F. (2023). The 5 stages in the design thinking process. [Link: https://www.interactiondesign.org/literature/article/5-stages-in-the-design-thinking-process, Date of access: 19.10.2023.]
• Dam, R., & Siang, T. (2018). Prototyping: Learn eight common methods and best practices. Interaction Design Foundation Website. https://edtechbooks.org/-SZt
• Dosi, C., Rosati, F., & Vignoli, M. (2018). Measuring design thinking mindset. In DS 92: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2018 15th International Design Conference (pp.1991-2002). https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0493
• Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British journal of psychology (London, England: 1953), 105(3), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046
• Dym, C. L., Alice, M. Agogino, O. E., Daniel, D. F., & Larry, J. L.. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103-20. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168- 9830.2005.tb00832.x Erkuş, A. (2012). Varolan ölçek geliştirme yöntemleri ve ölçme kuramları psikolojik ölçek geliştirmede ne kadar işlevsel: Yeni bir öneri [How functional are existing scale development methods and measurement theories in psychological scale development: A new proposal]. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 3(2), 279-290.
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N.E., & Hyun, H.H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (Eight Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Freeman, B., Marginson, S., & Tytler, R. (2019). An international view of STEM education. In A. Şahin & M. J. Mohr-Schroeder (Eds.), STEM Education 2.0 (pp. 350–363). Brill. [Link: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004405400_019, Date of access: 14.10.2023.]
• Furr, R. M., & Bacharach, V. R. (2013). Psychometrics: An introduction (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gasparini, A.A. (2015). Perspective and use of empathy in design thinking. International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interaction.
• Girgin, D. (2019). 21st century learning experience: Teachers ‘opinions on design thinking education. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 49(226), 53–91. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/1088880
• Goldman, S., Carroll, M. P., & Kabayadondo, Z. (2012). Assessing design thinking: 1, 2, 3. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking research (pp. 13-33). Springer.
• Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2010) Multivariate data analysis (7th Edition), Pearson, New York.
• Han, S., & Bhattacharya, K., (2001). Constructionism, learning by design, and project based learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. [Link: https://pirun.ku.ac.th/~btun/papert/design.pdf , Date of access: 14.10.2023.]
• Hassi, L., & Laakso, M. (2011). Design thinking in the management discourse: Defining the elements of the concept. In 18th international product development management conference, Innovate Through Design, June 5-7, Delft, the Netherlands. [Link:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274066130_Making_sense_of_design_thinking, Date of access: 14.10.2023.]
• Hathaway, D. & Norton, P. (2015). A preservice high education technology course: Design decisions and students’ learning experiences. In D. Rutledge & D. Slykhuis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2015-- Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 925-933). Las Vegas, NV, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). [Link: https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/150112/, Date of access: 14.10.2023.]
• Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967-988. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639502100509
• Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 53-60.
• Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447
• Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
• IDEO. (2019a). Design Thinking Frequently Asked Questions… | IDEO | Design Thinking. [Link: https://designthinking.ideo.com/faq/how-do-people-define-design-thinking, Date of access: 16.10.2023]
• IDEO. (2019b). New Applications | IDEO | Design thinking. [Link: https://designthinking.ideo.com/new-applications, Date of access: 16.10.2023]
• IDEO. (2019c). IDEO Design Thinking |Design Thinking Defined. [Link: https://designthinking.ideo.com/#design-thinking-in-context , Date of access: 16.10.2023]
• 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
• Kali, Y., McKenney, S., & Sagy, O. (2015). Teachers as designers of technology enhanced learning. Instructional Science, 43(2), 173–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9343-4
• Karakaya, İ. (2012). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. [Scientific research methods] A. Tanrıöğen (Edt.) Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Anı.
• Karasar, N. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi: Kavramlar-ilkeler-teknikler. [Scientific research method: Concepts-principles-techniques.]. Ankara: Nobel Yayın.
• Kelley, D. (2015). “The Field Guide to Human-Centered Design”. IDEO. [Link: https://d1r3w4d5z5a88i.cloudfront.net/assets/guide/Field%20Guide%20to%20HumanCentered%20Design_IDEOorg_English-0f60d33bce6b870e7d80f9cc1642c8e7.pdf, Date of access: 17.10.2023]
• Kevin, C., & Ron, S. (2008). Unleashing the power of design thinking. Design Management Review, 19(3), 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1948-7169.2008.tb00123.x
• Kılıç, A. F., & Uysal, İ. (2021). The effect of factor extraction methods on the parallel analysis results. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi, 11(2), 926-942. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.747075
• Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking design thinking: Part I. Design and Culture, 3(3), 285-306, https://doi.org/10.2752/175470811X13071166525216
• Kirschner, P.A. Do we need teachers as designers of technology enhanced learning?. Instructional Science, 43, 309–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9346-9
• Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of Structural Equation Modeling (4th ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
• Kolodner, J. L., P. J. Camp, D. Crismond, B. Fasse, J. Gray, J. Holbrook, S. Puntambekar, & M. Ryan. (2003). Problem- based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design tm into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12 (4). 495–547.
• Kouprie, M., & Visser, F. S. (2009). A framework for empathy in design: Stepping into and out of the user’s life. Journal of Engineering Design, 20(5), 437–448.
• Lai, J. W. M., & Bower, M. (2019). How is the use of technology in education evaluated? A systematic review. Computers & Education, 133, 27-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.01.010
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
• Martin, R., & Martin, R. L. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Harvard Business Press.
• McNeish D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we'll take it from here. Psychological methods, 23(3), 412–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144
• Megginson, L. C. (1963). Civilisation past and present. [Link: https://medium.com/the-1000-day-mfa/it-is-not-the-strongest-that-survives-973a39f0d026 , Date of access: 09.02.2023]
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
• Millsap, R. E. (2011). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
• Muijs, D. (2004). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS. London; Thousand Oaks, CA; New Delhi: Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.18276/ejsm.2016.20-01
• Mulder, P. (2017). Design thinking. [Link: https://www.toolshero.com/creativity/design-thinking/, Date of access: 19.10.2023.]
• National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
• Noweski, C., Scheer, A., Büttner, N., von Thienen, J., Erdmann, J., Meinel, C. (2012). Towards a paradigm shift in education practice: Developing twenty-first century skills with design thinking. In Plattner, H., Meinel, C., Leifer, L. (eds) Design thinking research. Understanding Innovation. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31991-4_5
• OECD. (2021). AI and the future of skills, Volume 1: Capabilities and Assessments, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5ee71f34-en
• Özdamar, K. (2016). Ölçek ve test geliştirme yapısal eşitlik modellemesi [Scale and test development structural equation modeling], Eskişehir: Nisan Kitabevi.
• Özdemir, A. (2021). Ortalamadan bireyselliğe, standart sınavlardan sınıf içi değerlendirmeye [From averaging to individualisation, from standardised exams to in-class assessment]. Özdemir, N., Turan, S. ve Çoban, Ö. (Eds.), 21. yüzyıl okullarını yeniden düşünmek (2. Baskı, s.1-23) [Rethinking 21st century schools (2nd edition, pp.1-23)]. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
• Özdemir, A. (2023). Yükseköğretimde tasarım odaklı düşünmenin kullanılması: Branşa özgü sınıf tasarımı [Using design thinking in higher education: Subject-specific classroom design]. Girgin, D. ve Toker, Z. (Eds.), Eğitimde tasarım odaklı düşünme yaklaşımı ve uygulama örnekleri (1. Baskı, s. 429-458) [Design-oriented thinking approach and application examples in education (1st Edition, pp.429-458)]. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
• Özmen, H., & Karamustafaoğlu, O. (2023). Eğitimde araştırma yöntemleri (3. baskı) [Research methods in education (3rd edition)]. Pegem Akademi.
• Plano Clark, V. L., & Ivankova, N. V. (2016). Mixed Methods Research: A Guide to the Field. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483398341
• Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. (2011). Design thinking: Understand -improve -apply. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
• Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review: DR, 41, 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004
• Rauth, I., Köppen, E., Jobst, B., & Meinel, C. (2010). Design thinking: An educational model towards creative confidence. In DS 66-2: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on design creativity (ICDC 2010), Kobe, Japan.
• Raykov, T. (2004). Behavioral scale reliability and measurement invariance evaluation using latent variable modeling. Behavior Therapy, 35, 299-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(04)80041-8
• Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important?. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330-348.
• Revelle, W., & Zinbarg, R. E. (2009). Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the glb: Comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74(1), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9102-z
• Sarıkoç, Z. & Ersoy, H. (2022). STEM applications with design thinking approach: Example of eTwinning project. Journal of Science, Mathematics, Entrepreneurship and Technology Education, 5(2),98-122. Schumpeter, J.A. (2021). Kapitalizm sosyalizm ve demokrasi (4. Baskı). [Capitalism, socialism and democracy (4th ed.).] (Çev. H. İlhan). Ankara: Alter Yayıncılık. (Orijinal yayın tarihi, 1942).
• Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2015). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York: Routledge.
• Seçer, İ. (2023). SPSS ve LISREL ile pratik veri analizi (4. Baskı) [Practical data analysis with SPSS and LISREL (4th Edition)]. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
• Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde güvenilirlik ve geçerlilik (2. Baskı) [Reliability and validity in social and behavioral measurement (2nd Edition)]. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8(2), 23–74.
• Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2015). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Steiger, J.H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173-180. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4
• Stevens, J.P. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th Edition), Routledge, New York.
• Sürmelioğlu, Y., & Erdem, M. (2021). Öğretimde Tasarım Odaklı Düşünme Ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 18(39), 223-254. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.833362
• Şahin, E. (2019). The relationship of design thinking method in self-esteem and creativity within cognitive and emotional context: An activity study. [Unpublished master thesis]. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, TOBB Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using Multivariate Statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
• Tavşancıl, E. (2005). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi [Measurement of attitudes and data analysis with SPSS]. Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
• Terzi, A. (2020). Post-truth kavramı ve Türkçe karşılıkları üzerine [On the concept of post-truth and its Turkish equivalents]. Türk Dili, Yıl: 69, Sayı: 820. ss.80-86. [Link: https://tdk.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Âdem-Terzi-_-POST-TRUTH-KAVRAMI-_-7-2.pdf ; Date of access: 14.02.2021]
• Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
• Tschimmel, K. (2012). Design thinking as an effective toolkit for innovation. ISPIM Conference Proceedings; Manchester: The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM). 1-20.
• TÜBİTAK, (2021). Deneyap atölyeleri: Tasarım ve üretim [Deneyap workshops: Design and production]. TÜBİTAK Bilim ve Toplum Başkanlığı. Ankara
• TÜSİAD & ERG, (2024). Geleceğin dünyasına hazırlanırken eğitime bakış: Pisa 2022 bulguları ışığında Türkiye’de eğitimin durumu araştırması [A look at education in preparing for the world of the future: The state of education in Turkey in the light of Pisa 2022 findings.]. TÜSİAD, İstanbul.
• World Economic Forum. (2020). The Future of Jobs Report 2020. [Link: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs_2020.pdf , Date of access: 14.10.2023.]
• Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127
• Weng, C., Chen, C. & Ai, X. (2023). A pedagogical study on promoting students' deep learning through design-based learning. Int J Technol Des Educ, 33, 1653–1674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022- 09789-4
• Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4-70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002
• Yurdagül, H. (2005). The congeneric test theory and the congeneric ıtem analysis: An application for unidimensional multiple choice tests. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences (JFES), 38(2), 21-47. https://doi.org/10.1501/Egifak_0000000116
• Yıldırım, A., & Şimsek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in social sciences]. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.