Top

International Journal of Technology and Design Education

Published in:

09-02-2023

Developing a design thinking engagement scale for early childhood teachers

Authors: Nanxi Chen, Dandan Wu, Huang-Yao Hong, Ching Sing Chai, Jyh-Chong Liang

Published in: International Journal of Technology and Design Education | Issue 5/2023

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

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.

previous article The distant studio: a survey of design students’ experience with distance educational formats

next article Correction to: Transferring makerspace activities to the classroom: a tension between two learning cultures

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Available only for authorised users

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/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411CrossRef

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/10.2307/2392322CrossRef

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/BF02723327CrossRef

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238CrossRef

Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C.-P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods and Research, 16, 78–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124187016001004CrossRef

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.12089CrossRef

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-xCrossRef

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.2014.11.010CrossRef

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/10.1080/15710882.2020.1812667CrossRef

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_29CrossRef

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.2014.15.1.40CrossRef

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/10.1080/19312458.2017.1396583CrossRef

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.2013.10.014CrossRef

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/10.1037/0033-2909.126.6.890CrossRef

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.2017.04.002CrossRef

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/10.1080/10705519909540119CrossRef

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/10.3102/00346543059002117CrossRef

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/10.3102/00346543074001059CrossRef

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_37CrossRef

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/10.1080/10400410903579494CrossRef

Goldschmidt, G. (2016). Linkographic evidence for concurrent divergent and convergent thinking in creative design. Creativity Research Journal, 28(2), 115–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1162497CrossRef

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/10.1080/00461520.2014.989230CrossRef

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.12090CrossRef

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)00295-8CrossRef

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/10.1080/09669760.2017.1341303CrossRef

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.2016.03.001CrossRef

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/10.1177/183693911504000102CrossRef

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/10.1080/10705519909540118CrossRef

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.12023CrossRef

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/3867CrossRef

Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests. Psychometrika, 36(2), 109–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291393CrossRef

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/10.1080/10409289.2013.744683CrossRef

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.2016.12.018CrossRef

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.21222CrossRef

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.2016.01.014CrossRef

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.2006.05.001CrossRef

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.2020.100655CrossRef

Luka, I. (2014). Design thinking in pedagogy. The Journal of Education, Culture, and Society, 5(2), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.15503/jecs20142.63.74CrossRef

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.1.2.130CrossRef

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/s11251-014-9337-2CrossRef

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.2017.03.001CrossRef

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.2006.7.1.30CrossRef

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.2420150303CrossRef

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/s11858-017-0870-8CrossRef

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.2016.0015CrossRef

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.98.4.222-233CrossRef

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/10.3102/0034654312457429CrossRef

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_3CrossRef

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/10.1080/10400419.2012.652929CrossRef

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:1015630930326CrossRef

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.j463w79r56455411CrossRef

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/10.1080/00461520.2014.1002924CrossRef

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.PR0.114k14w0CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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/10.1080/07294360.2017.1342605CrossRef

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/10.1177/0013164496056002001CrossRef

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/10.1177/0735633120967326CrossRef

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.2018.09.022CrossRef

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_12CrossRef

Voelkl, K. E. (1997). Identification with school. American Journal of Education, 105(3), 204–319. https://doi.org/10.1086/444158CrossRef

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.2016.01.008CrossRef

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/10.1177/0022487117712487CrossRef

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/10.1177/2332858418757735CrossRef

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/10.1177/0011000006288127CrossRef

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.2018.03.003CrossRef

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.p079CrossRef

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_2CrossRef

Title: Developing a design thinking engagement scale for early childhood teachers
Authors: Nanxi Chen
Dandan Wu
Huang-Yao Hong
Ching Sing Chai
Jyh-Chong Liang
Publication date: 09-02-2023
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: International Journal of Technology and Design Education / Issue 5/2023
Print ISSN: 0957-7572
Electronic ISSN: 1573-1804
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-023-09807-z

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Other articles of this Issue 5/2023

Developing an understanding of coherent approaches between primary and secondary teachers: a case study within the design and technology curriculum in Scotland

Correction to: Transferring makerspace activities to the classroom: a tension between two learning cultures

Exploring the architectural design process assisted in conventional design studio: a systematic literature review

Undergraduate students’ beliefs about diverse approaches to making engineering design decisions: Exploring change during a capstone course

Models and modelling in secondary technology and engineering education

Exploring the impact of self-regulated learning intervention on students' strategy use and performance in a design studio course

Premium Partner