Skip to main content

When design thinking goes to school: A literature review of design competences for the K-12 level

Abstract

School can nurture critical thinkers, creative individuals, and skilled collaborators and communicators, who are curious about and invested in society. Design thinking is a promising educational approach because it builds on the notion that students learn by tackling problems in the world. However, implementing this approach in a school setting is not straightforward. Our paper synthesizes the findings from the literature on design thinking in the K-12 school context. We explore what competences students apply and develop in the design process and how these competences are described in the literature. Then, we link the discovered competences to the pedagogical context by comparing them with phases of inquiry developed by educational thinker John Dewey. This paper’s main contribution is a conceptualization of competences and their relations, which we in closing summarize in our Design Competence Framework. This model can encourage teachers and researchers alike to be attentive to these competences and to assess them.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

References marked with an asterisk indicate the articles included in the review

  1. *Anderson, N. (2012). Design thinking: Employing an effective multidisciplinary pedagogical framework to foster creativity and innovation in rural and remote education. Australian and International Journal of Rural Education, 22(2), 43–52.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Atman, C., Chimka, J. R., Bursic, K. M., & Nachtmann, H. L. (1999). A comparison of freshman and senior engineering design processes. Design Studies, 20(2), 131–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00031-3

  3. *Bain, J., & McLaren, S. V. (2006). Sustainable assessment: Exploring a learner-centred approach in practice. In Middleton, H., Pavlova, M., & Roebuck, D. (Eds.), 4th biennial international conference on technology education research (pp. 1–10). Griffith Institute for Educational Research.

  4. *Baynes, K., & Baynes, B. (2010). Models of change: The future of design education. Design and Technology Education, 15(3), 10–17. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/article/view/1532

  5. *Becker, S. (2016). Developing pedagogy for the creation of a school makerspace: Building on constructionism, design thinking, and the Reggio Emilia approach. The Journal of Educational Thought, 49(2), 192–209.

    Google Scholar 

  6. *Bequette, J. W., & Bequette, M. B. (2012). A place for art and design education in the STEM conversation. Art Education, 65(2), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2012.11519167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. *Berry, M. (2012). Analysis of a program to promote design education in rural Queensland secondary schools. In H. Middleton (Ed.), 7th biennial international conference on technology education research (pp. 52–60). Griffith Institute for Educational Research.

  8. Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In Griffin, P., McGaw, B., & Care, E. (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st-century skills (pp. 17–66). Springer.

  9. Brown, T. (2009). Change by design. How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. Harper Collins.

  10. Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 8(1), 30–35.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Buchanan, R. (1999). Design research and the new learning. Design Issues, 17(4), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1162/07479360152681056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. *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. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 29(1), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2010.01632.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. *Charman, H. (2010). Designerly learning: Workshops for schools at the Design Museum. Design and Technology Education, 15(3), 28–40. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/article/view/1531

  15. Chen, A., Kiersma, M., Yehle, K., & Plake, K. (2015). Impact of an aging simulation game on pharmacy students’ empathy for older adults. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 79(5), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe79565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. *Cook, K. L., & Bush, S. B. (2018). Design thinking in integrated STEAM learning: Surveying the landscape and exploring exemplars in elementary grades. School Science and Mathematics, 118(3), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738–797. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb01127.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(82)90040-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cross, N. (2001a). Design cognition: Results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. In C. M. Eastman, W. M. McCracken, & W. C. Newstetter (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 79–103). Elsevier.

  20. Cross, N. (2001b). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1162/074793601750357196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cross, N. (2002). Creative cognition in design: Processes of exceptional designers. In T. Hewett & T. Kavanagh (Eds.), Creativity and cognition (pp. 6–12). ACM Press.

  22. Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 425–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.06.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Cross, N. (2008). Engineering design methods: Strategies for product design (4th ed.). Wiley.

  25. Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Berg.

  26. Cross, N., & Dorst, K. (1998). Co-evolution of problem and solution spaces in creative design: Observations from an empirical study. In J. S. Gero & M. L. Maher (Eds.), Computational models of creative design IV (pp. 243–262). University of Sydney.

  27. Cross, N., Naughton, J., & Walker, D. (1981). Design method and scientific method. Design Studies, 2(4), 195–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(81)90050-8

  28. Cross, N., Sorst, K., & Roozenburg, N. (1992). Research in design thinking. Delft University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Motivation and creativity: Towards a synthesis of structural and energetic approaches to cognition. New Ideas in Psychology, 6(2), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/0732-118X(88)90001-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. Harper Perennial.

  31. *Cusens, D., & Byrd, H. (2013). An exploration of foundational design thinking across educational domains. Art, Design and Communication in Higher Education, 12(2), 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1386/adch.12.2.229_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. *Davis, M. (2011). Creativity, innovation, and design thinking. In S. Warner & P. Gemmill (Eds.), 2011 yearbook, creativity and design in technology and engineering education (CTETE) (Vol. 60, pp. 149–181). Council on Technology and Engineering Teacher Education.

  33. De Vries, M. J. (2011). Introduction. In M. J. de Vries (Ed.), Positioning technology education in the curriculum (pp. 1–7). Sense Publishers.

  34. Department of Education and Science & the Welsh Office. (1988). National curriculum: Design and technology working group. Interim Report.

  35. Dewey, J. (1905). The school and society. The University of Chicago Press.

  36. Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. D. C. Heath and Co.

  37. Dewey, J. (1938). Logic, the theory of inquiry. Henry Holt and Company.

  38. Dewey, J. (1985). The middle works of John Dewey, Volume 9, 1899–1924: Democracy and education, 1916. Southern Illinois University Press.

  39. Dörner, D. (1999). Approaching design thinking research. Design Studies, 20(5), 407–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(99)00023-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Dorst, K. (2006). Design problems and design paradoxes. Design Issues, 22(3), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1162/desi.2006.22.3.4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. MIT Press.

  42. Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Dubberly, H. (2008). Design in the age of biology: Shifting from a mechanical-object ethos to an organic-systems ethos. Interactions Magazine, 15(5). https://doi.org/10.1145/1390085.1390092

  44. Edwards, D. (2008). Artscience. Creativity in the post-Google generation. Harvard University Press.

  45. Ejsing-Duun, S., & Hanghøj, T. (2019). Design thinking, game design, and school subjects: What is the connection? In L. Elbaek, G. Majgaard, A. Valente, & S. Khalid (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Games Based Learning (pp. 201–209). Academic Conferences and Publishing International. https://doi.org/10.34190/GBL.19.143.

  46. Ejsing-Duun, S., & Skovbjerg, H. M. (2019). Design as a mode of inquiry in design pedagogy and design thinking. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 38(2), 445–460. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12214.

  47. *Francis, K., Bruce, C., Davis, B., Drefs, M., Hallowell, D., Hawes, Z., McGarvey, L., Moss, J., Mulligan, J., Okamoto, Y., Sinclair, N., Whiteley, W., & Woolcott, G. (2017). Multidisciplinary perspectives on a video case of children designing and coding for robotics. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(3), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2017.1297510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Goleman, D. (1999). Working with emotional intelligence. Bloomsbury.

  50. Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Halfin, H. H. (1973). Technology: A process approach [Doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University]. Dissertation Abstracts International.

  53. Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169–190). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  54. Haught-Tromp, C. (2017). The green eggs and ham hypothesis: How constraints facilitate creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11(1), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. *Hill, A. M., & Anning, A. (2001a). Comparisons and contrasts between elementary/primary “school situated design” and “workplace design” in Canada and England. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11(2), 111–136. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011245632705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. *Hill, A. M., & Anning, A. (2001b). Primary teachers’ and students’ understanding of school situated design in Canada and England. Research in Science Education, 31(1), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012662329259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Ho, C.-H. (2001). Some phenomena of problem decomposition strategy for design thinking: Differences between novices and experts. Design Studies, 22, 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(99)00030-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. International Technology Education Association (2007). Standards for technological literacy. Content for the study of technology (3rd ed.). https://www.iteea.org/42511.aspx

  59. Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design thinking: Past, present and possible futures, 22(2), 121–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12023

  60. *Johns, G., & Mentzer, N. (2016). STEM integration through design and inquiry. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 76(3), 13–17.

    Google Scholar 

  61. *Kangas, K., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2013). Design thinking in elementary students’ collaborative lamp designing process. Design and Technology Education, 18(1), 30–43. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/article/view/1798/1732

  62. *Kelley, T. R. (2010). Optimization, an important stage of engineering design. The Technology Teacher, 69(5), 18–23.

    Google Scholar 

  63. *Kelley, T. R. (2014). Construction of an engineer’s notebook rubric. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 73(5), 26–32.

    Google Scholar 

  64. *Kelley, T. R. (2017). Design sketching: A lost skill. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 76(8), 8–12.

    Google Scholar 

  65. *Kelley, T. R., Capobianco, B. M., & Kaluf, K. J. (2015). Concurrent think-aloud protocols to assess elementary design students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(4), 521–540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9291-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. *Kimbell, R. (2007). Assessment of design and technology in the U.K.: International approaches to assessment. In M. C. Hoepfl & M. R. Lindstrom (Eds.), Assessment of technology education, CTTE 56th yearbook (pp. 181–202). Glencoe-McGraw Hill.

  67. Kimbell, R., Stables, K., Wheeler, T., Wozniak, A., & Kelly, A. V. (1991). The assessment of performance in design and technology. SEAC/HMSO.

  68. King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment. Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2005). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(3), 94–102. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/55262/

  70. Kubie, L. (1958). The neurotic distortion of the creative process. University of Kansas Press.

  71. *Lammi, M., & Becker, K. (2013). Engineering design thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 24(2), 55–77. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v24i2.a.5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Lawson, B. R., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  73. *Lim, S. S. H., Lim-Ratnam, C., & Atencio, M. (2013). Understanding the processes behind student designing: Cases from Singapore. Design and Technology Education, 18(1), 20–29. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/article/view/1797

  74. Magnussen, R., & Stensgaard, A. G. (2018). Community drive: Teaching children and young people to transform cities through game and data-driven methods. In M. Ciussi (Ed.), Proceedings of the 12th European conference on games-based learning (pp. 354–361). Academic Conferences and Publishing International.

  75. March, L. (1976). The logic of design and the question of value. In L. March (Ed.), The architecture of form (pp. 1–41). Cambridge University Press.

  76. McKim, R. (1972). Experiences in visual thinking. Brooks/Cole.

  77. *McLain, M., McLain, M., Tsai, J., Martin, M., Bell, D., & Wooff, D. (2017). Traditional tales and imaginary contexts in primary design and technology: A case study. Design and Technology Education, 22(2), 26–40. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/article/view/2265

  78. *Mentzer, N. (2014). Team based engineering design thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 25(2), 52–72. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v25i2.a.4

  79. *Mentzer, N., Becker, K., & Sutton, M. (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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Mosborg, S., Cardella, M., Saleem, J., Atman, C., Adams, R. S., & Turns, J. (2006). Engineering design expertise study (CELT Technical Report, CELT-06–02). University of Washington.

  81. *Noel, L.-A., & Liub, T. L. (2017). Using design thinking to create a new education paradigm for elementary level children for higher student engagement and success. Design and Technology Education, 22(1), 1–12. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/article/view/2198

  82. *Norris, A. (2014). Make-her-spaces as hybrid places: Designing and resisting self-constructions in urban classrooms. Equity and Excellence in Education, 47(1), 63. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2014.866879

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Oshima, J. (1998). Differences in knowledge-building between two types of networked learning environments: An information analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 19(3), 329–351. https://doi.org/10.2190/YLLX-M9CW-15X9-BJJ9

  84. Papert, S. (1998). Child power: Keys to the new learning of the digital century. The Eleventh Colin Cherry Memorial Lecture on Communication, June 2, 1998, Imperial College London. http://www.papert.org/articles/Childpower.html

  85. Passig, D. (2007). Melioration as a higher thinking skill of future intelligence. Teachers College Record, 109(1), 24–50.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Peirce, C. S., Hartshorne, C., Weiss, P., & Burks, A. (1974). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, 1931–1958. Belknap Press.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Pellegrino, J. W., & Wilson, M. (2015). Assessment of complex cognition: Commentary on the design and validation of assessments. Theory into Practice, 54(3), 263–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2015.1044377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Piaget, J. (1936). Origins of intelligence in the child. Routledge and Kegan Paul.

  89. Plattner, H. (2010). d.school bootcamp bootleg. Institute of Design at Stanford. https://dschool.stanford.edu/resources/design-thinking-bootleg

  90. *Razzouk, R., & 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. *Retna, K. S. (2016). Thinking about “design thinking”: A study of teacher experiences. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36, 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2015.1005049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Robinson, K. (2001). Out of our minds. Capstone Publishing.

  93. Rosenman, M., & Gero, J. (1993). Creativity in design using a design prototype approach. In J. S. Gero & M. L. Maher (Eds.), Modeling creativity and knowledge-based creative design (pp. 111–138). Lawrence Erlbaum.

  94. Rowland, G. (2004). Shall we dance? A design epistemology for organizational learning and performance. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Rusmann, A., & Bundsgaard, J. (2019). Developing a test to measure design thinking. In L. Elbæk, G. Majgaard, A. Valente, & M. S. Khalid (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Games Based Learning (pp. 587–596). Academic Conferences & Publishing International Ltd. https://doi.org/10.34190/GBL.19.071.

  97. *Scheer, A., Noweski, C., & Meinel, C. (2012). Transforming constructivist learning into action: Design thinking in education. Design and Technology Education, 17(3), 8–19. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/article/view/1758

  98. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.

  99. Schön, D. (1992a). The theory of inquiry: Dewey’s legacy to education. Curriculum Inquiry, 22(2), 119–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1992.11076093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Schön, D. (1992b). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Knowledge-Based Systems, 5(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-7051(92)90020-G

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Schuun, C. (2008). Engineering educational design. Educational Designer, 1(1), 1–23. https://www.educationaldesigner.org/ed/volume1/issue1/article2/

  102. Schwartz, R. (1987). Teaching for thinking: Developmental model for the infusion of thinking skills into mainstream instruction. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 106–126). W. H. Freeman and Company.

  103. Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Sheppard, S. D., Macatangay, K., Colby, A., & Sullivan, W. M. (2009). Educating engineers: Designing for the future of the field. Jossey-Bass.

  105. *Shively, K., Stith, K. M., & Rubenstein, L. D. (2018). Measuring what matters: Assessing creativity, critical thinking, and the design process. Gifted Child Today, 41(3), 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217518768361

  106. Simon, H. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Simon, H. (1988). The science of design: Creating the artificial. Design Issues, 4(1/2), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511391.

  108. Stables, K. (1992). The role of fantasy in contextualising and resourcing design and technology activity. In J. Smith (Ed.), IDATER 92: International conference on design and technology educational research and curriculum development (pp. 110–115). Loughborough University of Technology.

  109. Stager, G. S. (2013). Papert’s prison fab lab: Implications for the maker movement and education design. In J. P. Hourcade, E. A. Miller, & A. Egeland (Eds.), 12th international conference on interaction design and children (pp. 487–490). Association for Computing Machinery.

  110. Staw, B. (2006). Individualistic culture trumps teamwork. University of California at Berkeley.

  111. *Stein, S. J., McRobbie, C. J., & Ginns, I. S. (2002). Primary school students’ approaches to design activities. In W. Shilton & R. Jeffery (Eds.), Annual conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education. https://www.aare.edu.au/publications/aare-conference-papers/show/3644/primary-school-students-approaches-to-design-activities

  112. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1999). Handbook of creativity. Cambridge University Press.

  113. *Sung, E., & Kelley, T. R. (2018). Identifying design process patterns: A sequential analysis study of design thinking. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29, 283–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9448-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. *Tan, C., & Wong, Y.-L. (2012). Promoting spiritual ideals through design thinking in public schools. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 17(1), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364436X.2011.651714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Torrance, E. P. (1959). Current research on the nature of creative talent. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 6(4), 309–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. *Tsai, C.-C., Chai, C. S., Wong, B. K. S., Hong, H.-Y., & Tan, S. C. (2013). Positioning design epistemology and its applications in education technology. Educational Technology and Society, 16(2), 81–90.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1992). Epistemological pluralism and the revaluation of the concrete. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 11(1), 3–33.

    Google Scholar 

  118. *Underwood, J. (2014). Using iPads to help teens design their own activities. In S. Jager, L. Bradley, E. J. Meima, & S. Thouësny (Eds.), CALL design: Principles and practice; Proceedings of the 2014 EUROCALL conference, Groningen, the Netherlands (pp. 385–390). https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2014.000250

  119. Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.668938

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Watkins, S. C. (2012). Why critical design literacy is needed now more than ever. Connected Learning Alliance. https://clalliance.org/blog/why-critical-design-literacy-is-needed-now-more-than-ever/

  121. *Watson, A. D. (2015). Design thinking for life. Art Education, 68(3), 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2015.11519317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. *Wells, A. (2013). The importance of design thinking for technological literacy: A phenomenological perspective. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(3), 623–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-012-9207-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was supported by Grants from Aalborg University and Innovation Fund Denmark.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Rusmann.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rusmann, A., Ejsing-Duun, S. When design thinking goes to school: A literature review of design competences for the K-12 level. Int J Technol Des Educ (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09692-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Design thinking
  • Competences
  • Inquiry
  • K-12