Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Investigating Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Design Performance in Laboratory Class: The Inquiry-Based Design Thinking Approach

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The laboratory plays a crucial role in science education. However, teacher education for pre-service teachers’ design performance in the laboratory is still challenging. This study paved the way for redesigning traditional laboratory teaching into a student-centered approach: inquiry-based design thinking (IBDT). To investigate the impact of the IBDT approach on students’ design performance of science experiments, 25 pre-service science teachers participated in a series of laboratory activities guided by the IBDT approach in a teacher education program in this study. Mixed research methods were employed to collect and analyze students’ responses to pre- and post-surveys, their designed artifacts, and self-reflection reports. The overall positive results were obtained except for students’ performance in art design, organization of the materials, and the gap between students’ understanding of theories and their practices/practical skills. The findings will inform the laboratory instruction in teacher education in science or science-oriented Science-Technology-Engineering-Mathematics (STEM) education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data analyzed during the study including the designed artifacts and the self-reflection reports, pre-and post-perception survey are not publicly available but are available from the authors on request.

References

  • Abbonizio, J. K., & Ho, S. S. Y. (2020). Students’ perceptions of interdisciplinary coursework: An Australian case study of the master of environment and sustainability. Sustainability, 12, 8898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atchia, S. M. C. (2021). Integration of ‘design thinking’ in a reflection model to enhance the teaching of biology. Journal of Biological Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2021.1909642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azizan, S. A., & Shamsi, N. A. (2022). Design-based learning as a pedagogical approach in an online learning environment for science undergraduate students. Frontiers in Education, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.860097

  • Baer, J., & McKool, S. S. (2009). Assessing creativity using the Consensual Assessment Technique. In Handbook of Research on Assessment Technologies, Methods, and Applications in Higher Education (pp. 1–13). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-6679.ch004

  • Barlex, D. M., & Trebell, D. (2008). Design-without-make: Challenging the conventional approach to teaching and learning in a design and technology classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18(2), 119–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bequett, J. W., & Bequett, M. B. (2012). A place for art and design education in STEM conversation. Art Education, 65(2), 40–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brederode, M. E., Zoon, S. A., & Meeter, M. (2020). Examining the effect of lab instructions on students’ critical thinking during a chemical inquiry practical. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21(4), 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buelin, J. K., Lammi, M. D., & D’Amico, S. (2015). Developing Instrumentation for Assessing Creativity in Engineering Design. Journal of Technology Education, 27(1). https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v27i1.a.2

  • Capobianco, B. M., Radloff, J., & Clingerman, J. (2022). Facilitating Preservice Elementary Science Teachers’ Shift from Learner to Teacher of Engineering Design-Based Science Teaching. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20(4), 747–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, M. (2015). Stretch, dream, and do - A 21st Century design thinking & STEM Journey. Journal of Research in STEM Education, 1(1), 59–70.

  • 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. The International Journal of Art & Design Education, 29(1), 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (2014). Supporting knowledge integration in chemistry with a visualization-enhanced inquiry unit. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 37–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 1(18), 93–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738–797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutumisu, M., Schwartz, D. L., & Lou, N. M. (2020). The relation between academic achievement and the spontaneous use of design-thinking strategies. Computers & Education, 149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103806

  • Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective Teacher Professional Development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.

  • Davis, E. A. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diefenthaler, A., Moorhead, L., Speicher, S., Bear, C., & Cerminaro D. (2017). Thinking & Acting Like a Designer: How design thinking supports innovation in K-12 education. Ed. Wise & Ideo.

  • d.school (2011). Design Mindset and Process. Retrieved from https://dschool.stanford.edu/resources/gettingstarted-with-design-thinking

  • Fortus, D. (2005). Design-based science. The Science. Education Review, 4(2), 40–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004). Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1081–1110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Dershimer, R., Marx, R., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Design-based science and real world problem solving. International Journal of Science Education, 27(7), 855–879.

  • Goldman, S., & Kabayadondo, Z. (2016). Taking Design Thinking to School: How the technology of design can transform teachers, learners, and classrooms. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Henriksen, D., Richardson, C., & Mehta, R. (2017). Design thinking: A creative approach to educational problems of practice. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 26, 140–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Girault, I., D’Ham, C., Ney, M., Sanchez, E., Wajeman, C. (2012). Characterizing the experimental procedure in science laboratories: A preliminary step towards students experimental design. International Journal of Science Education, 34(6), 825–854. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.569901

  • Hodson, D. (1992). In search of a meaningful relationship: An exploration of some issues relating to integration in science and science Education. International Journal of Science Education, 14(5), 541–566.

  • Hofstein, A. (2017). The Role of Laboratory in Science Teaching and Learning. In: Taber, K.S., Akpan, B. (eds) Science Education. New Directions in Mathematics and Science Education. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-749-8_26

  • Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 201–217. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170311

  • Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2003). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty‐first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10106

  • Hong, H., Lin, P., & Lee, Y. (2019). Developing effective knowledge-building environments through constructivist teaching beliefs and technology-integration knowledge: A survey of middle-school teachers in northern Taiwan. Learning and Individual Differences, 76, 101787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.101787

  • Howitt, D., & Gramer, D. (2011).Grounded theory. In D. Howitt & D. Gramer (Eds), Introduction to Research Methods in Psychology (pp.343–357). Essex: Pearson Education.

  • Huang, Y. (2021). Effectiveness of inquiry-based science laboratories for improving teamwork and problem-solving skills and attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(3), 329–357.

  • Hume, A., Coll, R. (2010). Authentic student inquiry: the mismatch between the intended curriculum and the student‐experienced curriculum. Research in Science & Technological Education, 28, 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140903513565

  • Kember, D., McKay, J., Sinclair, K., & Wong, F. K. Y. (2008). A four-category scheme for coding and assessing the level of reflection in written work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(4), 369–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, M. M. (1998). The relevance of content in in-service teacher education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting AERA, San Diego, CA.

  • Kind, P. M., & Kind, V. (2007). Creativity in science education: Perspectives and challenges for developing school science. Studies in Science Education, 43(1), 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Wong, B., Hong, H. Y. (2015). Design Thinking and Education. In: Design Thinking for Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-444-3_1

  • Lansiquot, R. D. (2016). Introduction: An interdisciplinary approach to problem solving. In: Lansiquot, R. (eds) Interdisciplinary Pedagogy for STEM. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56745-1_1

  • Layton, D. (1993). Technology’s challenge to science education. Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leite, L., & Dourado, L. (2013). Laboratory activities, science education and problem -solving skills. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 1677–1686.

  • Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., & diSessa, A. A. (2019). Design and design thinking in STEM education. Journal for STEM Education Research, 2, 93–104.

  • Lin, K. -Y., Wu, Y. -T., Hsu, Y. -T., & Willimas, P. J. (2021). Effects of infusing the engineering design process into STEM project-based learning to develop preservice technology teachers’ engineering design thinking. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00258-9

  • Lin, L., Shadiev, R., Hwang, W., & Shen, S. (2020). From knowledge and skills to digital works: An application of design thinking in the information technology course. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 36, 100646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100646

  • Mccomas, W. (2005). Laboratory instruction in the service of science teaching and learning. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 24–29.

  • Mulet, E., Royo, M., Chulvi, V., & Galán, J. (2017). Relationship between the degree of creativity and the quality of design outcomes. Dyna, 84(200), 38–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odu, G. O. (2019). Weighting methods for multi-criteria decision-making technique. Journal of Applied Science and Environmental Studies, 23(8), 1449–1457.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003

  • Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 29(5), 489–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Owen, S. V. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 30(4), 459–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raaijmakers, H., Mc Ewen, B., Walan, S., & Christenson, N. (2021). Developing museum-school partnerships: art-based exploration of science issues in a third space. International Journal of Science Education, 43(17), 2746–2768,

  • Raviv, A., Cohen, S., & Aflalo, E. (2019). How should students learn in the school science laboratory? The benefits of cooperative learning. Research in Science Education, 49, 331–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9618-2

  • Rauth, I., Jobst, B., Köppen, E., & Meinel, C. (2010). Design thinking: an educational model. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Design Creativity (ICDC2010), Kobe, Japan.

  • Retna, K. S. (2016). Thinking about “design thinking”: a study of teacher experiences. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36(1), 5–19.

  • Saribas, D., & Ceyhan, G. D. (2015). Learning to teach scientific practices: pedagogical decisions and reflections during a course for pre-service science teachers. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(7). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0023-y

  • Scheer, A., & Noweski, C. (2013). Transforming constructivist learning into action: Design thinking in education. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 17(3), 8–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silk, E. M., Schunn, C. D., & Cary, M. S. (2009). The impact of an engineering design curriculum on science reasoning in an urban setting. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 209–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simeon, M. I., Samsudin, M. A., & Yakob, N. A. (2020). Effect of design thinking approach on students’ achievement in some selected physics concepts in the context of STEM learning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32, 185–212.

  • Stammes, H., Henze, I., & Barendsen, E., & de Vries, M. (2020). Bringing design practices to chemistry classrooms: Studying teachers’ pedagogical ideas in the context of a professional learning community. International Journal of Science Education, 42(4), 526–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szott, A. (2014). Open-ended laboratory investigations in a high school physics course: The difficulties and rewards of implementing inquiry-based learning in a physics lab. The Physics Teacher, 52, 17–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tafa, B. (2012). Laboratory activities and students practical performance: The case of Practical Chemistry I course of Haramaya University. African Journal of Chemical Education, 2(3), 47–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tu, J. C., Liu, L- X., & Wu, K- Y. (2018). Study on the learning effectiveness Stanford Design Thinking in integrated design education. Sustainability, 10(8), 2469.

  • Walker, J. P., Sampson, V., Southerland, S., & Enderle, P. J. (2016). Using the laboratory to engage all students in science practices. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17, 1098–1113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, A. D. (2015). Design thinking for life. Art. Education, 68(3), 12–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wei, B., & Chen, Y. (2020). The meaning of “experiment” in the intended chemistry curriculum in China: The changes over the period from 1953 to 2018. International Journal of Science Education, 42(4), 656–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wieman, C., & Holmes, N. G.(2015). Measuring the impact of an instructional laboratory on the learning of introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 83, 972–978.

  • Wu, B., Hu, Y., & Wang, M. (2019). Scaffolding design thinking in online STEM preservice teacher training. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2271–2287.

  • Yoon, H., & Kim, M. (2010). Collaborative reflection through dilemma cases of science practical work during practicum. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 283–301.

  • Yang, Y., Liu, X., & Gardella Jr, J. A. (2020). Effects of a professional development program on science teacher knowledge and practice, and student understanding of interdisciplinary science concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(7), 1028–1057.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The study was funded by Zhejiang Provincial Philosophy and Social Sciences Planning Project (23NDJC133YB), and the General Research Project of Zhejiang Provincial Department of Education (Y202147141). The authors would like to thank the participants and their teachers who took the time to participate in our project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Education, Zhejiang Normal University, Jinhua, China

    Liying Zhu & Song Xue

  2. Department of Mathematics and Information Technology, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

    Daner Sun

  3. College of Teacher Education, Ningbo University, Ningbo, China

    Ma Luo

  4. College of Chemistry and Materials Sciences, Zhejiang Normal University, Jinhua, China

    Weidong Liu

Authors
  1. Liying Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daner Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ma Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Weidong Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Song Xue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Dr. Zhu and Dr. Sun conducted the research and wrote the paper. Dr. Ma and Dr. Liu discussed the research methods and analyzed the data. Dr. Xue conducted part of the literature review.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daner Sun.

Ethics declarations

Human and Animal Rights

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Appendix: Pre-and-post Perception Survey Questions

Appendix: Pre-and-post Perception Survey Questions

Pre-survey

Q1: How much do you know about experiment design?

Q2: Have you ever heard of design thinking? If so, explain it briefly

Q3: As a future science teacher, what do you think you need to improve in experiment design?

Post-survey

Q1: How much do you know about experiment design?

Q2: What is your understanding of design thinking? Please explain it briefly

Q3: As a future science teacher, what have you learned from this design activity? And how will it help you in your future teaching?

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.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhu, L., Sun, D., Luo, M. et al. Investigating Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Design Performance in Laboratory Class: The Inquiry-Based Design Thinking Approach. J Sci Educ Technol 33, 30–44 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-023-10050-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-023-10050-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation