An Overview of the Literature on Design Thinking in Education and Educational Research
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/jeer.v2i3.7745Keywords:
Web of Science, Design Thinking, A bibliometric analysis, International core journalsAbstract
This paper provides a bibliometric analysis of Design Thinking in education and educational research based on the Web of Science (WoS) database from 2002 to 2022. It is a guiding procedure aligning the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines into the bibliometric standard workflow and adopting VOSviewer as the visualization tool. With the built-in WoS analysis tools, the annual publication trends and contributions and the most prolific countries are explored. VOSviewer is employed to exploit the research themes. The co-occurrence analysis of keywords distinguishes nine research themes, namely creativity, design education, motivation, instructional design, problem-based learning, engineering design, methodology, pedagogy and teacher education.
Downloads
References
Aksela, M., 2019. Towards student-centered solutions and pedagogical innovations in science education through co-design approach within design-based research. LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 7 (3), 113–139. doi:10.31129/LUMAT.7.3.421.
Andino, C.I., 2017. Approaching bridges between university education and elementary school: design thinking for educators in El Salvador. International journal of design education, 11 (2), 35–51.
Alsolami, B., and M.R. Embi.2018. Crowding Perception: A Case Study of Developed Systematic Literature Review Procedure with Multiple Software Programs as Management and Synthesis Tools, (April).” International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(2.10):121-26.
Almasri, H., Zakuan, N., Amer, M, Majid, M., 2021. Estudios De Economia Aplicada. Doi: http: // dx.doi.org / 10.25115 / eea.v39i4.4559.
Arrington, T.L. and Willox, L., 2021. “I need to sit on my hands and put tape on my mouth”: improving teachers’ design thinking knowledge, skills, and attitudes through professional development. Journal of formative design in learning, 5 (1), 27–38.
Blundell, C., 2022. A scoping review of design thinking in school-based teacher professional learning and development. Professional Development in Education.1-16. doi: 10.1080 / 199415257.2022.2132269.
Bressler, D.M. and Annetta, L.A., 2021. Using game design to increase teachers’ familiarity with design thinking. International journal of technology and design education, 1–13. doi:10.1007/s10798-020-09628-4.
Chai, C.S., 2018. Teacher professional development for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education: a review from the perspectives of technological pedagogical content (TPACK). The Asia-Pacific education researcher, 28 (1), 5–13. doi:10.1007/s40299-018-0400-7.
Chiu, T.K.F., et al., 2021. Teacher professional development on self-determination theory–based design thinking in STEM education. Educational technology & society, 24 (4), 153–165.
Christiaans, H., Venselaar, K, 2005. Creativity in Design Engineering and the Role of Knowledge: Modelling the Expert. Int J Technol Des Educ 15, 217–236. https: // doi.org / 10.1007 / s10798-004-1904-4.
DeLuca, C., et al., 2015. Collaborative inquiry as a professional learning structure for educators: a scoping review. Professional development in education, 41 (4), 640–670. doi: 10.1080 / 19415257.2014.933120.
Georgiev,V. 2012. Design Thinking: An Overview. Design Thinking Special Issue of Japanese Society for the Science of Design, 20-1(77), 72-29.
Fleury, A.,Stabile, H., Carvalho, M.,2016. An Overview of the Literature on Design Thinking: Trends and Contributions. International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(4), 1704-1718.
Henriksen, D., Richardson, C., and Mehta, R., 2017. Design thinking: a creative approach to educational problems of practice. Thinking skills and creativity, 26, 140–153.
Hynes, M., 2012. Middle grades teachers’ understanding and teaching of the central ideas of the engineering design process. Advances in engineering education, 3 (2), 1–21.
Kalibatiene D. and Miliauskaitė J., 2021. A systematic mapping with bibliometric analysis on information systems using ontology and Fuzzy logic. Applied Sciences, 11(7), 3003.
Kelly, N., et al., 2019. Co-design for curriculum planning: a model for professional development for high school teachers. The Australian journal of teacher education, 44 (7), 84–107.
Kim, M.S., 2021. A systematic review of the design work of STEM teachers. Research in science & technological education, 39 (2), 131–155.
Koh, J.H.L., Chai, C.S., Benjamin, W. et al.2015. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) and Design Thinking: A Framework to Support ICT Lesson Design for 21st Century Learning. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 24, 535–543 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-015-0237-2.
Koh, J.H.L. and Chai, C.S., 2016. Seven design frames that teachers use when considering technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers and education, 102, 244–257.
Koh, J.H.L., Chai, C.S., and Lim, W.Y., 2017. Teacher professional development for TPACK-21CL: effects on teacher ICT integration and student outcomes. Journal of educational computing research, 55 (2), 172–196.
Kyza, E.A. and Nicolaidou, I., 2017. Co-designing reform-based online inquiry learning environments as a situated approach to teachers’ professional development. CoDesign, 13 (4), 261–286.
McFadden, J.R. and Roehrig, G.H., 2017. Exploring teacher design team endeavors while creating an elementary-focused STEM-integrated curriculum. International journal of STEM education, 4 (1), 1–22.
Moher, D.Liberati,A., Tetzlaff, J.and Altman, D.G. 2009.Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097.
Noh, S.C. and Karim, A.M.A., 2021. Design thinking mindset to enhance education 4.0 competitiveness in Malaysia. International journal of evaluation and research in education, 10 (2), 494–501.
Petersen K., Vakkalanka S. and Kuzniarz L. 2015. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology, 64, 1–18.
Razzouk, R. and Shute, V., 2012. What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of educational research, 82 (3), 330–348.
Spoon, R., et al., 2020. Reconceptualizing professional learning within the gifted field: exploring the instruct to innovate model. Journal for the education of the gifted, 43 (3), 193–226.
Stevenson, M., et al., 2019. By design: professional learning ecologies to develop primary school teachers’ makerspaces pedagogical capabilities. British journal of educational technology, 50 (3), 1260–1274.
Tualaulelei, E. and Halse, C., 2021. A scoping study of in-service teacher professional development for inter/multicultural education and teaching culturally and linguistically diverse students. Professional development in education, 1–15.
Van Eck N. J., Waltman L., 2009. VOSviewer: A computer program for bibliometric mapping (No. ERS-2009-005-LIS). http://ssrn.com/abstract=1346848
Wright, N., et al., 2018. Beyond ‘chalk and talk’: educator perspectives on design immersion programs for rural and regional schools. International journal of technology and design education, 30 (1), 35–65.
Yeh, Y.-F., Chan, K.K.H., and Hsu, Y.-S., 2021. Toward a framework that connects individual TPACK and collective TPACK: a systematic review of TPACK studies investigating teacher collaborative discourse in the learning by design process. Computers and education, 171.
Yurkofsky, M.M., et al., 2020. Research on continuous improvement: exploring the complexities of managing educational change. Review of research in education, 44 (1), 403–433.
Zupic I. and Čater T. 2015. Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472.
