Abstract
Engaging in design thinking activities has been increasingly viewed as important for the craft of teaching for early childhood practitioners. However, reliable and valid measurements for this are lacking. As such, this research aims to develop and validate a design thinking engagement scale (DTES) to assess teachers’ engagement in design thinking. A sample of 370 Chinese kindergarten teachers completed a questionnaire to test its reliability, validity and generality empirically. First, principal component analysis (PCA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) both supported a five-factor structure of the DTES, indicating satisfactory construct validity. The total variance explained in PCA was 85.48%. Second, the reliability analyses within each sub-dimension and for the total DTES also showed an adequate internal consistency for the scale, ranging from .89 to .92 in PCA, and .84 to .94 in CFA. Besides, at CFA, the composite reliability (ρ) (.84 to .94) also indicated a good reliability. Moreover, both good convergent validity and discriminant validity were obtained through the method of average variance extracted (AVE) for each dimension (.64 to .80) and constraining the correlations between each pair of constructs respectively. Thus, the DTES can be a promising tool for measuring design thinking engagement among early childhood teachers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, G. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
Bagozzi, R. P., & Phillips, L. W. (1982). Representing and testing organizational theories: A holistic construal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(3), 459–489. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392322
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 76–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C.-P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods and Research, 16, 78–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124187016001004
Bentler, P. M., & Wu, E. J. C. (1993). EQS/windows user’s guide. BMDP Statistical Software Incorporated.
Borup, J., Graham, C. R., & Drysdale, J. S. (2014). The nature of teacher engagement at an online high school. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 793–806. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12089
Boschman, F., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2014). Understanding decision making in teachers’ curriculum design approaches. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(4), 393–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9341-x
Boschman, F., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2015). Exploring teachers’ use of TPACK in design talk: The collaborative design of technology-rich early literacy activities. Computers and Education, 82, 250–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.010
Brinck, J., Leinonen, T., Lipponen, L., & Kallio-Tavin, M. (2020). Zones of participation—A framework to analyse design roles in early childhood education and care (ECEC). CoDesign. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2020.1812667
Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires Innovation. HarperBusiness.
Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Development Outreach, 12(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1596/1020-797X_12_1_29
Campbell, S., Torr, J., & Cologon, K. (2014). Pre-packaging preschool literacy: What drives early childhood teachers to use commercially produced phonics programs in prior to school settings. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 15(1), 40–53. https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2014.15.1.40
Carpenter, S. (2018). Ten steps in scale development and reporting: A guide for researchers. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2017.1396583
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9.
Cviko, A., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2014). Teacher roles in designing technology-rich learning activities for early literacy: A cross-case analysis. Computers and Education, 72, 68–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.014
Davidson, R. J., Jackson, D. C., & Kalin, N. H. (2000). Emotion, plasticity, context, and regulation: Perspectives from affective neuroscience. Psychological Bulletin, 126(6), 890–909. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.6.890
Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Westview Press.
Davis, M. H. (2004). Empathy. In J. E. Stets & J. H. Turner (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of emotions (pp. 443–466). Springer.
Deininger, M., Daly, S. R., Sienko, K. H., & Lee, J. C. (2017). Novice designers’ use of prototypes in engineering design. Design Studies, 51, 25–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2017.04.002
Dong, Y., Xu, C., Song, X., Fu, Q., Chai, C. S., & Huang, Y. (2019). Exploring the effects of contextual factors on in-service teachers’ engagement in STEM teaching. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 28, 25–34.
Fan, X., Thompson, B., & Wang, L. (1999). Effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 56–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540119
Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for windows. Sage.
Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59(2), 117–142. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543059002117
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Fredricks, J. A., & McColskey, W. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In S. Christenson, A. L. Reschy, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 319–339). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_37
Gabora, L. (2010). Revenge of the “neurds”: Characterizing creative thought in terms of the structure and dynamics of memory. Creativity Research Journal, 22(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410903579494
Goldschmidt, G. (2016). Linkographic evidence for concurrent divergent and convergent thinking in creative design. Creativity Research Journal, 28(2), 115–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1162497
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Greene, B. A. (2015). Measuring cognitive engagement with self-report scales: Reflections over 20 years of research. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 14–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.989230
Griffin, P., & Care, E. (Eds.). (2014). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills: Methods and approach. Springer.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2010). SEM: An introduction. Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Pearson Education.
Hamre, B. K. (2014). Teachers’ daily interactions with children: An essential ingredient in effective early childhood programs. Child Development Perspectives, 8(4), 223–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12090
Hardesty, D. M., & Bearden, W. O. (2004). The use of expert judges in scale development: Implications for improving face validity of measures of unobservable constructs. Journal of Business Research, 57(2), 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00295-8
Hayes, N., & Filipović, K. (2018). Nurturing ‘buds of development’: From outcomes to opportunities in early childhood practice. International Journal of Early Years Education, 26(3), 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2017.1341303
Hoe, S. L. (2008). Issues and procedures in adopting structural equation modeling technique. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 3(1), 76–83.
Hu, B. Y., Dieker, L., Yang, Y., & Yang, N. (2016). The quality of classroom experiences in Chinese kindergarten classrooms across settings and learning activities: Implications for teacher preparation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 57, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.03.001
Hu, B. Y., Fan, X., Ieong, S. L. S., & Li, K. (2015). Why is group teaching so important to Chinese children’s development? Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 40(1), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/183693911504000102
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
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
John, M.-S., Sibuma, B., Wunnava, S., Anggoro, F., & Dubosarsky, M. (2018). An iterative participatory approach to developing an early childhood problem-based STEM curriculum. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(3), 7. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/3867
Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests. Psychometrika, 36(2), 109–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291393
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Scientific Software.
Jung, J., & Recchia, S. (2013). Scaffolding infants’ play through empowering and individualizing teaching practices. Early Education and Development, 24(6), 829–850. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2013.744683
Kangas, M., Siklander, P., Randolph, J., & Ruokamo, H. (2017). Teachers’ engagement and students’ satisfaction with a playful learning environment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 274–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.12.018
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
Knight-Bardsley, A., & Mcneill, K. L. (2016). Teachers’ pedagogical design capacity for scientific argumentation. Science Education, 100(4), 645–672. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21222
Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Benjamin, W., & Hong, H. Y. (2015). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) and design thinking: A framework to support ICT lesson design for 21st century learning. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24, 535–543.
Körkkö, M., Kyrö-Ämmälä, O., & Turunen, T. (2016). Professional development through reflection in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 198–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.01.014
Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. Routledge.
LoCasale-Crouch, J., Konold, T., Pianta, R., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Bryant, D., Clifford, R., Early, D., & Barbarin, O. (2007). Observed classroom quality profiles in state-funded pre-kindergarten programs and associations with teacher, program, and classroom characteristics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.05.001
Loyola, C. C., Grimberg, C. A., & Colomer, Ú. B. (2020). Early childhood teachers making multiliterate learning environments: The emergence of a spatial design thinking process. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 36, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100655
Luka, I. (2014). Design thinking in pedagogy. The Journal of Education, Culture, and Society, 5(2), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.15503/jecs20142.63.74
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130
McKenney, S., Kali, Y., Markauskaite, L., & Voogt, J. (2015). Teacher design knowledge for technology enhanced learning: An ecological framework for investigating assets and needs. Instructional Science, 43(2), 181–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9337-2
Menold, J., Jablokow, K., & Simpson, T. (2017). Prototype for X (PFX): A holistic framework for structuring prototyping methods to support engineering design. Design Studies, 50, 70–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2017.03.001
Ministry of Education. (1956). 关于执行师范学校、幼儿师范学校教学计划的意见[Opinions on the implementation of the Teaching Plan for Colleges of Kindergarten Education]. People’s Education, 6, 53–56.
Ministry of Education. (2011). 教师教育课程标准[Teacher education curriculum standards]. Retrieved from http://old.moe.gov.cn//publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/s6049/201110/xxgk_125722.html
Ministry of Education. (2012a). 3–6岁儿童学习与发展指南[Guidelines for learning and development of children aged 3–6]. Retrieved from http://old.moe.gov.cn//publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/s7371/201305/152136.html
Ministry of Education. (2012b). 幼儿园教师专业标准[Kindergarten teachers' professional standards]. Retrieved from http://old.moe.gov.cn//publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/s7232/2012b12/xxgk_145603.html
Ministry of Education. (2013). 教育部关于印发《中小学教师资格考试暂行办法》《中小学教师资格定期注册暂行办法》的通知[Notice of the ministry of education on printing and distributing the interim measures for the qualification examination of primary and secondary chool teachers and the interim measures for the periodic registration of teachers' qualifications in primary and secondary schools]. Retrieved from http://old.moe.gov.cn//publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/s7151/201309/156643.html
Ministry of Education. (2016). 幼儿园工作规程[Kindergarten work regulations and procedures]. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A02/s5911/moe_621/201602/t20160229_231184.html
Moss, P. (2006). Structures, understandings and discourses: Possibilities for re-envisioning the early childhood worker. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 7(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2006.7.1.30
National Education Committee. (1989). 幼儿园工作规程 (试行) [Kindergarten work regulations and procedures (trial version]. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A02/s5911/moe_621/201511/t20151119_220023.html
Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420150303
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Osborne, J. W. (2015). What is rotating in exploratory factor analysis. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 20(2), 1–7.
Pepin, B., Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2017). Refining teacher design capacity: Mathematics teachers’ interactions with digital curriculum resources. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49(5), 799–812. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0870-8
Pianta, R., Downer, J., & Hamre, B. (2016). Quality in early education classrooms: Definitions, gaps, and systems. The Future of Children, 26(2), 119–137. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2016.0015
Ravindran, B., Greene, B. A., & Debacker, T. K. (2005). Predicting preservice teachers’ cognitive engagement with goals and epistemological beliefs. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(4), 222–233. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.98.4.222-233
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
Rindskopf, D., & Rose, T. (1988). Some theory and applications of confirmatory second-order factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2301_3
Rotherham, A. J., & Willingham, D. (2009). 21st century. Educational Leadership, 67(1), 16–21.
Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. (2012). Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.652929
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326
Scheer, A., Noweski, C., & Meinel, C. (2012). Transforming constructivist learning into action: Design thinking in education. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 17(3), 8–19.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement in science. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.1002924
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2014). Teacher self-efficacy and perceived autonomy: Relations with teacher engagement, job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion. Psychological Reports, 114(1), 68–77. https://doi.org/10.2466/14.02.PR0.114k14w0
Stanford D. School. (2018). Bootcamp bootleg. Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57c6b79629687fde090a0fdd/t/58890239db29d6cc6c3338f7/1485374014340/METHODCARDS-v3-slim.pdf
Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social science (3rd ed.). Erlbaum.
Swantz, M. L. (2008). Participatory action research as practice. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), The Sage handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (2nd ed., pp. 31–48). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Harper & Row.
Tadesse, T., Manathunga, C. E., & Gillies, R. M. (2018). The development and validation of the student engagement scale in an Ethiopian university context. Higher Education Research and Development, 37(1), 188–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1342605
Thompson, B., & Daniel, L. G. (1996). Factor analytic evidence for the construct validity of scores: A historical overview and some guidelines. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164496056002001
Tsai, C. C., & Chai, C. S. (2012). The “third”-order barrier for technology-integration instruction: Implications for teacher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(6), 1057–1060.
Tsai, K. C. (2018). Development of the tsai design thinking scale. Arts and Design Studies, 69, 44–54.
Tsai, M. J., & Wang, C. Y. (2020). Assessing young students’ design thinking disposition and its relationship with computer programming self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(3), 410–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120967326
Tseng, J. J., Cheng, Y. S., & Yeh, H. N. (2019). How pre-service English teachers enact TPACK in the context of web-conferencing teaching: A design thinking approach. Computers and Education, 128, 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.022
Velicer, W. F., & Jackson, D. N. (1990). Component analysis versus common factor-analysis—Some further observations. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(1), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2501_12
Voelkl, K. E. (1997). Identification with school. American Journal of Education, 105(3), 204–319. https://doi.org/10.1086/444158
Wang, M. T., Fredricks, J. A., Ye, F., Hofkens, T. L., & Linn, J. S. (2016). The math and science engagement scales: Scale development, validation, and psychometric properties. Learning and Instruction, 43, 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.008
Wang, Y. (2014). 幼儿园教师培养与培训的科学规划——基于在实践中落实《3~6岁儿童学习与发展指南》的思考 [Make a good plan for training and developing kindergarten teachers according to the Guide]. Studies in Early Childhood Education, 10, 58–60.
Warren, C. A. (2018). Empathy, teacher dispositions, and preparation for culturally responsive pedagogy. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(2), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117712487
Weiland, C., McCormick, M., Mattera, S., Maier, M., & Morris, P. (2018). Preschool curricula and professional development features for getting to high-quality implementation at scale: A comparative review across five trials. AERA Open, 4(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418757735
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
Yang, Y., Hu, B. Y., Yu, S., Roberts, S. K., & Ieong, S. S. (2018). A qualitative case study of instructional support practices in Chinese preschool classrooms. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 18, 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2018.03.003
Yong, A. G., & Pearce, S. (2013). A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 9(2), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.09.2.p079
Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal, M., Espinosa, L. M., Gormley, W. T., Ludwig, J., Magnuson, K. A., Phillips, D., & Zaslow, M. J. (2013). Investing in our future: The evidence base on preschool education. Foundation for Child Development.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2501_2
Funding
Funding was provided by Taiwan’s Ministry of Science and Technology (Grant Nos. MOST 106-2511-S-004-008-MY2 and MOST 107-2511-H-004 -004 -MY3).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Design thinking engagement scale (DTES)—original version
Empathize | |
E1 | I try to understand the children’s learning difficulties when I mark their assignments |
E2 | I discuss with other teachers the children’s learning to understand their problems better |
E3 | I talk to the children to find out what they need |
E4 | I observe children performing the tasks I assigned to ascertain if they are suitable for them |
Define | |
D1 | I determine what are the important points that the children must master in order to achieve good results |
D2 | I gauge the children’s current competency and decide what they need to learn |
D3 | I clarify the gaps between what the children know and what they need to know |
Ideate | |
I1 | I brainstorm for ideas to create effective lessons |
I2 | I think about alternative ways of conducting the lessons |
I3 | I create new ideas about how to teach a topic |
I4 | I consider including new strategies that may facilitate the children’s learning |
Prototype | |
P1 | I write down clearly the lesson objectives to be achieved |
P2 | I consciously choose teaching and learning strategies for the lesson objectives |
P3 | I source relevant information and materials to make the lesson interesting |
P4 | I create presentation slides and write down the instruction for the children to follow |
Test | |
T1 | I conduct the lesson as planned to test out the feasibility of the lesson |
T2 | I monitor the children’s progress to understand the effectiveness of the lesson design |
T3 | I change the strategies and materials before I conduct the same lesson again when necessary |
T4 | I reflect on the successes and failures of the lesson |
T5 | I am constantly performing lesson revisions |
Appendix 2: Design thinking engagement scale (DTES)—final version
Empathize | |
E1 | I try to understand the children’s learning difficulties when I mark their assignments |
E2 | I discuss with other teachers the children’s learning to understand their problems better |
E3 | I talk to the children to find out what they need |
E4 | I observe children performing the tasks I assigned to ascertain if they are suitable for them |
Define | |
D1 | I determine what are the important points that the children must master in order to achieve good results |
D2 | I gauge the children’s current competency and decide what they need to learn |
D3 | I clarify the gaps between what the children know and what they need to know |
Ideate | |
I2 | I think about alternative ways of conducting the lessons |
I3 | I create new ideas about how to teach a topic |
I4 | I consider including new strategies that may facilitate the children’s learning |
Prototype | |
P2 | I consciously choose teaching and learning strategies for the lesson objectives |
P3 | I source relevant information and materials to make the lesson interesting |
P4 | I create presentation slides and write down the instruction for the children to follow |
Test | |
T2 | I monitor the children’s progress to understand the effectiveness of the lesson design |
T3 | I change the strategies and materials before I conduct the same lesson again when necessary |
T5 | I am constantly performing lesson revisions |
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, N., Wu, D., Hong, HY. et al. Developing a design thinking engagement scale for early childhood teachers. Int J Technol Des Educ 33, 2045–2069 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-023-09807-z
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-023-09807-z