Development of Design Thinking Scale in Teaching

Year 2021, Volume: 18 Issue: 39, 223 - 254, 01.07.2021

Yeşim Sürmelioğlu , Mukaddes Erdem

https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.833362

Cited By: 1

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to develop a valid and reliable scale to determine the design thinking structure of teachers in the technology-based teaching process. In the process, we primarily, an item pool of 62 items, representing the characteristics of the design thinker, was created based on the literature review. Draft items were presented to the preliminary opinion of 5 teachers from different branches. Necessary arrangements were made with the recommendations received, and 8 expert opinions were consulted on the form. The participants of the research comprised 630 teachers from different branches. As a result of the exploratory factor analysis we obtained a structure explaining 50.20% of the total variance and comprising 25 items and four factors. The dimensions in the scale include relation, process, ethics and individual perceptions. According to the results of the confirmatory factor analysis we calculated RMSEA (.045), SRMR (.043), IFI (.96), GFI (.90), NFI (.90), NNFI (.95) and CFI (.96), which were among the fit indices regarding the model proposed. Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficient for the scale was found to be .93. As the values acquired demonstrated a good fit, the model was appropriate for the structure observed and it was approved as a model. As a consequence we created a four-dimensional valid and reliable data collection tool of 25 items for the scale developed, in order to evaluate the design thinking of teachers in the technology-based teaching design process. The scale can be applied to all teachers in design thinking processes within its structure and general framework.

Keywords

Design Thinking, Design Thinking Scale, Design Thinker, Instructional Design, Scale Development

Öğretimde Tasarım Odaklı Düşünme Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı öğretmenlerin, teknoloji tabanlı öğretim tasarımı sürecinde tasarım odaklı düşünme yapılarının belirlenmesine ilişkin, geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek geliştirmektir. Süreçte öncelikle, alanyazın incelemelerinden hareketle tasarım düşünürünün özelliklerini temsil eden, 62 maddelik bir madde havuzu oluşturulmuştur. Taslak maddeler farklı branştaki 5 öğretmenin ön görüşüne sunulmuştur. Alınan önerilerle gerekli düzenlemeler yapılarak form 8 uzman görüşüne başvurulmuştur. Araştırmanın katılımcıları farklı branş ve kademelerden 630 öğretmenden oluşmaktadır. Açımlayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda toplam varyansın %50.20’sini açıklayan, 25 madde ile 4 faktörden oluşan bir yapı elde edilmiştir. Ölçekte yer alan boyutlar ilişki, süreç, etik ve birey algılarını kapsamaktadır. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonucuna göre, önerilen modele ilişkin uyum indekslerinden RMSEA (.045), SRMR (.043), IFI (.96), GFI (.90), NFI (.90), NNFI (.95), CFI (.96) hesaplanmıştır ve elde edilen değerler iyi uyum gösterdiğinden modelin gözlenen yapıya uygun olduğu ve model olarak doğrulandığı tespit edilmiştir. Ölçeğin iç tutarlılık güvenirliği için Cronbach Alfa katsayısı .93 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Sonuç olarak geliştirilen ölçeğin, öğretmenlerin, teknoloji tabanlı öğretim tasarımı sürecinde tasarım odaklı düşünmelerini değerlendirmeye yönelik 25 maddeli ve 4 boyutlu geçerli ve güvenilir bir veri toplama aracı olduğu söylenebilir. Ölçek, yapısı ve genel çerçevesi dâhilinde tasarım odaklı düşünme süreçlerinde tüm öğretmenlere uygulanabilir niteliktedir.

Keywords

Tasarım odaklı düşünme, tasarım odaklı düşünme ölçeği, tasarım düşünürü, öğretim tasarımı, ölçek geliştirme

References

• Akdemir, N. (2017). Tasarım kavramının geniş çerçevesi: tasarım odaklı yaklaşımlar üzerine bir inceleme. ODÜ Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(1), 85-94.
• Association for Educational Communications and Technology [AECT]. (2018). Instructional design definition. Retrieved from https://www.aect.org/.
• Blizzard, J., Klotz, L., Potvin, G., Hazari, Z., Cribbs, J., and Godwin, A. (2015). Using survey questions to identify and learn more about those who exhibit design thinking traits. Design Studies, 38, 92-110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2015.02.002
• Boni, A. A., Weingart, L. R., and 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
• Bozkurt, A. (2020). Koronavirüs (Covid-19) pandemi süreci ve pandemi sonrası dünyada eğitime yönelik değerlendirmeler: Yeni normal ve yeni eğitim paradigması. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(3), 112-142.
• Bozkurt, A., and Sharma, R. C. (2020). Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to CoronaVirus pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), i-vi. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3778083
• Brenner, W., Uebernickel, F., and Abrell, T. (2016). Design thinking as mindset, process, and toolbox. In Design thinking for innovation (p. 3-21). Springer, Cham. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-26100-3_1
• Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard business review, 86(6), 84-92.
• Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design issues, 8(2), 5-21.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Factor analysis: Basic concepts and using to development scale. Educational Administration in Theory and Practice, 32(32), 470-483.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2016). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı istatistik, araştırma deseni SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum, Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık.
• Chesson, D. (2017). Design thinker profile: creating and validating a scale for measuring design thinking capabilities. (Doctoral dissertation). Antioch University.
• Child, D. (2006). The essentials of factor analysis. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design studies, 3(4), 221-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(82)90040-0
• Design Council, (2019). What is the framework for innovation? Retrieved from https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/what-framework-innovation-design-councils-evolved-double-diamond.
• DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications (Vol. 26). Sage publications.
• Doppelt, Y. (2009). Assessing creative thinking in design-based learning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(1), 55-65. doi: 10.1007/s10798-006-9008-y
• Dorst, K. (2010). The nature of design thinking. In Design thinking research symposium. DAB Documents.
• Dosi, C., Rosati, F., and Vignoli, M. (2018). Measuring design thinking mindset. In DS 92: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2018 15th International Design Conference (p.1991-2002). https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0493
• Erdem, M. (2020). Yeniden öğretmeyi öğrenmek: Organizmadan bireye öğretim süreçleri tasarımı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Friedman, K. (2003). Theory construction in design research: criteria: approaches, and methods. Design studies, 24(6), 507-522. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(03)00039-5
• Greene, M. T., Gonzalez, R., and Papalambros, P. Y. (2019, July). Measuring systems engineering and design thinking attitudes. In Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 3939-3948). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.401
• Gürbüz, S. (2019). AMOS ile yapısal eşitlik modellemesi. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., and Tatham, R. L. (2014). Multivariate data analysis, 5(3), 207-219). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice hall.
• Howard, Z., and Davis, K. (2011). From solving puzzles to designing solutions: Integrating design thinking into evidence based practice. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 6(4), 15-21.
• Johansson‐Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., and 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
• Junginger, S. (2007). Learning to design: giving purpose to heart, hand and mind. Journal of Business Strategy, 28(4), 59-65. https://doi.org/10.1108/02756660710760953
• Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking design thinking: Part I. Design and Culture, 3(3), 285-306. https://doi.org/10.2752/175470811X13071166525216
• Kline, R. B. (2011). Convergence of structural equation modeling and multilevel modeling (pp. 562-589). https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446268261.n31
• Kröper, M., Fay, D., Lindberg, T., and Meinel, C. (2010). Interrelations between motivation, creativity and emotions in design thinking processes - An empirical study based on regulatory focus theory. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Design Creativity ICDC 2010 (pp. 97-104), Kobe, Japan, November 2010.
• Liedtka, J. (2015). Perspective: Linking design thinking with innovation outcomes through cognitive bias reduction. Journal of product innovation management, 32(6), 925-938. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12163
• Liedtka, J. (2018). Exploring the impact of design thinking in action. Darden Working Paper Series.
• Martin, R., and Martin, R. L. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Harvard Business Press.
• Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory: 2d Ed. McGraw-Hill.
• Owen, C. (2007). Design thinking: Notes on its nature and use. Design Research Quarterly, 2(1), 16-27.
• Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS (6th ed.). London: McGraw-Hill Education.
• Rauth, I., Köppen, E., Jobst, B., and 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).
• Razzouk, R., and Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of educational research, 82(3), 330-348. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457429
• Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). What is instructional-design theory and how is it changing. Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, 2, 5-29.
• Rittel, H. W., and Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 4(2), 155-175.
• Rusmann, A., and Bundsgaard, J. (2019, October). Developing a Test to Measure Design Thinking. In European Conference on Games Based Learning (pp. 587-XXII). Academic Conferences International Limited. doi: 10.34190/GBL.19.071
• Scheer, A., Noweski, C., and Meinel, C. (2012). Transforming constructivist learning into action: Design thinking in education. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 17(3), 8-19.
• Şeker, H., and Gençdoğan, B. (2014). Psikolojide ve eğitimde ölçme aracı geliştirme. Ankara: Nobel.
• Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics: International edition. Pearson 2012.
• Tezbaşaran, A. (1997). Likert tipi ölçek geliştirme kılavuzu. Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Derneği.
• The Interaction Design Foundation [IDF] (2020). 5 Stages in the Design Thinking Process. Retrieved from https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/5-stages-in-the-design-thinking-process.
• Tsai, C. C., and Chai, C. S. (2012). The" third"-order barrier for technology-integration instruction: Implications for teacher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(6). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.810
• Türk Dil Kurumu [TDK]. (2020). Güncel Türkçe Sözlük. 27 Kasım 2020 tarihinde https://sozluk.gov.tr/ adresinden erişildi.