DESIGN-BASED THINKING INTENTIONS AMONG SECONDARY STUDENT-TEACHERS: IMPLICATIONS TO INSTRUCTIONAL DELIVERY
Abstract
As future educators, student-teachers must execute the needed deliverables as instructional implementers. However, many still need help once deployed in their respective cooperating schools due to the strenuous tasks they need to do, especially in selecting, designing, developing, and evaluating learning resources. With that in mind, the primordial intention of the study is to examine the design-based thinking intentions among secondary student-teachers deployed in various secondary schools in the divisions of Bataan and Balanga City and implicate the results to instructional delivery. It specifically examines the profile of student-teachers in terms of sex, area of specialization, and location of cooperating school; determines the design-based thinking intentions of student-teachers in terms of understanding (empathizing and defining), exploring (ideating and prototyping), and materializing (testing and implementing); and determines the implications of the findings to effective instructional delivery. Using the descriptive-developmental design of quantitative research, the data are gathered from 172 out of 199 student-teachers under the College of Education (COEd) who are randomly selected. The primary data-gathering tool used in the study is an adopted survey questionnaire. The quantitative data gathered from the study will be analyzed using descriptive statistics (i.e., frequency count, percentage, mean, and standard deviation) and inferential statistics (i.e., T-test and F-test/ANOVA). The results indicate that most respondents are female, majoring in Filipino, English, and Social Studies, and deployed in rural schools. The student-teachers exhibit a high level of design-based thinking intentions across all domains. Also, significant differences are noted in the design-based thinking intentions of student-teachers when grouped according to their profile.
Downloads
References
Bain, A. (2020). Addressing the challenges of program and course design in higher education with design technologies. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 9(2). https://dx.doi.org/10.51869/92ab
Bene, R. & McNeilly, E. (2020). Getting radical: Using design thinking to foster collaboration. Papers on Postsecondary Learning and Teaching, 4, 50–57.
Charosky, G., Hassi, L., Papageorgiou, K., & Bragós, R. (2022). Developing innovation competencies in engineering students: A comparison of two approaches. European Journal of Engineering Education, 47(2), 353-372.
Chiu, T. K. F., Chai, C. S., Williams, P. J., & Lin, T. J. (2021). Teacher professional development on self-determination theory-based design thinking in STEM education. Educational Technology & Society, 24(4), 153–165, October.
Delen, I. & Sen, S. (2022). Effect of design-based learning on achievement in K-12 education: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 60(2), 330–356, February.
Jackson, J. K., Forsythe, M., Parthemore, J., Rix, A., & Medeiros, D. (2021). Innovation and design: Using books to introduce engineering-based thinking. Science and Children, 58(3), 26–31, January-February.
Jimenez, E. C. & Csee, F. (2020). Motivating factors of teachers in developing supplementary learning materials (SLMs). International Journal of Advanced Research, 8(05), 108-113.
Ladachart, L., Radchanet, V., & Phothong, W. (2022). Design thinking mindsets facilitating students' learning of scientific concepts in design-based activities. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 19(1), 1–16.
Lyon, J. A. & Magana, A. J. (2021). The use of engineering model-building activities to elicit computational thinking: A design-based research study. Journal of Engineering Education, 110(1), 184-206, January.
McCurdy, R. P., Nickels, M., & Bush, S. B. (2020). Problem-based design thinking tasks: engaging student empathy in STEM. Electronic Journal for Research in Science & Mathematics Education, 24(2), 22–55.
OECD. (2019). Education at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/f8d7880d-en.pdf?expires=1721195745&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=A8DC2E2384A66F29623D9556B51869A8
Ogbu, J. E. (2015). Influences of inadequate instructional materials and facilities in teaching and learning of electrical/electronics technology education courses. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(33), 39–46.
Pecson, R. R. & Romero, M. C. (2023). Design-based thinking among secondary student-teachers: Input for a contextualized teaching plan. International Journal of Advance Research and Innovative Ideas in Education, 9(4), 2557–2569.
Schmidt, K. (2021, September 9). The Philippines: Emerging from a sea of language learning destinations. https://bridge.edu/tefl/blog/the-philippines-emerging-from-a-sea-of-language-learning-destinations/
Teach for the Philippines, Inc. (2020). On the frontlines: The perspective and experience of rural teachers in the Philippines: Who we are + 4 insights gained from experience. https://events.development.asia/system/files/materials/2022/03/202203-frontlines-perspective-and-experience-rural-teachers-philippines.pdf
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Laarni Canare, Ryan Pecson, Leandro Olubia, Monina Romero, Adraneda Gemma
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.