師大學報 - 教育科學研究期刊 - 期刊目錄列表 - 69卷(2024)

以作者名、篇名、關鍵字或DOI查詢

CONTRIBUTORS
NOTICE

[Guide for Submission]

稿約

[Style for Thesis Writing]

論文撰寫體例

[Review of Research Papers]

論文審查要點

[The Copyright]

著作權處理要點

[Flow of Review System]

審查制度流程

[Regulations Governing]

編審委員會設置要點

[Editorial Board]

本年度編審委員

[Advisory Board]

本年度諮詢委員

[Form Download]

相關表單下載

《教育科學研究期刊》「高等教育的教學卓越」專題徵稿(截稿日至2025/09/30) 《教育科學研究期刊》「社會情緒學習｣專題徵稿(截稿日至2024/10/31) 《教育科學研究期刊》「高齡教育」專題徵稿(截稿日至2024/12/31)

期刊目錄列表 - 69卷(2024) - 【教育科學研究期刊】69(2)六月刊

回上一頁

跨領域設計思考者特質量表之建構作者:國立高雄師範大學教育學系王佳琪、國立成功大學師資培育中心楊琬琳、國立中山大學人文暨科技跨領域學士學位學程宋世祥

卷期：69卷第2期
日期：2024年06月
頁碼：135-172
DOI：https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202406_69(2).0005

摘要：
本研究旨在建立一份跨領域設計思考者特質量表，並應用Rasch模式檢驗其心理計量特性，同時探討這些特質在不同背景變項下的關係。研究對象主要為大學生以上的成年人，包括預試樣本的208位受試者和正式樣本的529位受試者。這份量表共包含了八個向度的特質，分別為以人為本、同理心、整合思維、創意思維、動力心態、容忍不確定性與失敗、跨領域協作，以及原型製作與迭代實驗等向度，為五點量表，共計37題。為提供多元的效度證據，資料分析採用Rasch部分給分模式。研究結果顯示，八個向度皆具有良好的模式資料適配度，且大部分題目在性別上沒有明顯的差異試題功能（Differential Item Functioning, DIF），八個向度的信度介於.81至.86之間。在差異分析方面，結果顯示在性別、年級及舊經驗等背景變項下，部分向度的設計思考者特質有顯著差異。最後，本研究提供客觀的評量觀點，探討設計思考者特質、性別和年級之間的關係，並提出推動設計思考教育重要的基礎研究和實務應用價值的相關建議。

關鍵詞：Rasch部分給分模式、設計思考、設計思考者特質、跨領域

《詳全文》

參考文獻：

» 展開更多

方菁容（2022）。設計思考應用於擴增實境廣告設計實踐教學之影響。設計學報，27（3），73-91。
Fang, C.-J. (2022). The effect of design thinking on augmented reality advertising design practice teaching. Journal of Design, 27(3), 73-91.】
王文中（2004）。Rasch測量理論與其在教育和心理之應用。教育與心理研究，27（4），637-694。
Wang, W.-C. (2004). Rasch measurement theory and application in education and psychology. Journal of Education & Psychology, 27(4), 637-694.】
王佳琪、宋世祥（2019）。設計思考融入職前師資培育課程之實施與成效：以適性教學為例。教育科學研究期刊，64（4），145-173。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.201912_64(4).0006
Wang, C.-C., & Sung, S.-H. (2019). The “adaptive instruction” course as an example of the application and evaluation of a teacher education program course incorporating design thinking. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 64(4), 145-173. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.201912_64(4).0006】
王佳琪、宋世祥（2022）。設計思考人生課程的發展與實施：以技職校院師資生為例。教育科學研究期刊，67（4），221-253。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202212_67(4).0007
Wang, C.-C., & Sung, S.-H. (2022). Career development and improvements of preservice teachers through design your life course at science and technology universities. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 67(4), 221-253. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202212_67(4).0007】
宋世祥（2022）。USR能否不只是課程！從設計思考出發規劃USR課程初探與反思。科技管理學刊，27（3），1-43。
Sung, S.-H. (2022). Applying design thinking to design a “design thinking” course in a program of university social responsibility. Journal of Technology Management, 27(3), 1-43.】
林延諭、鄭夢慈（2016）。融入設計思考於嚴肅教育遊戲的設計歷程及對科技學科教學知識的影響：以職前教師為例。數位學習科技期刊，8（1），71-94。https://doi.org/10.3966/ 2071260X2016010801004
Lin, Y.-Y., & Cheng, M.-T. (2016). The integration of design thinking into the process of developing a serious educational game and its influence on technological pedagogical content knowledge: Taking the case of a pre-service teacher as an example. International Journal on Digital Learning Technology, 8(1), 71-94. https:// doi.org/10.3966/2071260X2016010801004】
華家緯（2020）。博物館創意學習資源研發之設計思考：以史博館行動博物館為例。博物館與文化，20，83-112。
Hua, C.-W. (2020). Design thinking and developing museum creative learning resources: The mobile museum of the National Museum of History. Journal of Museum & Culture, 20, 83-112.】
廖長彥（2019）。結合遊戲化與設計思考於跨領域小組的衛教影片製作。人文社會學報，15（3），241-256。
Liao, Y.-C. (2019). Integrating gamification into a design thinking approach to form an inter-disciplinary group creating health videos. Journal of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, 15(3), 241-256.】
劉世南、楊佳翰（2021）。設計思考中的創意：釋義與造物的啟發。中華心理學刊，63（2），121-141。https://doi.org/10.6129/CJP.202106_63(2).0002
Liou, S.-N., & Yang, C.-H. (2021). Creativity in design thinking: Inspiring sense-making and thing-making. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 63(2), 121-141. https://doi.org/10.6129/CJP.202106_63(2).0002】
Adams, R. S., Daly, S. R., Mann, L. M., & Dall’Alba, G. (2011). Being a professional: Three lenses into design thinking, acting, and being. Design Studies, 32(6), 588-607. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.destud.2011.07.004
Atman, C. J., Cardella, M. E., Turns, J., & Adams, R. (2005). Comparing freshman and senior engineering design processes: An in-depth follow-up study. Design Studies, 26(4), 325-357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.09.005
Atman, C. J., 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
Avsec, S., & Jagiełło-Kowalczyk, M. (2021). Investigating possibilities of developing self-directed learning in architecture students using design thinking. Sustainability, 13(8), 4369. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su13084369
Balakrishnan, B. (2022). Exploring the impact of design thinking tool among design undergraduates: A study on creative skills and motivation to think creatively. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32, 1799-1812. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09652-y
Benson, J., & Dresdow, S. (2014). Design thinking: A fresh approach for transformative assessment practice. Journal of Management Education, 38(3), 436-461. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1052562913507571
Benson, J., & Dresdow, S. (2015). Design for thinking: Engagement in an innovation project. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 13(3), 377-410. https://doi.org/10.1111/ dsji.12069
Beverland, M. B., Micheli, P., & Farrelly, F. J. (2016). Resourceful sensemaking: Overcoming barriers between marketing and design in NPD. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(5), 628-648. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12313
Bicen, P., & Johnson, W. H. A. (2015). Radical innovation with limited resources in high-turbulent markets: The role of lean innovation capability. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24(2), 278-299. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12120
Blizzard, J., Klotz, L., Potvin, G., Hazari, Z., Cribbs, J., & Godwin, A. (2015). Using survey questions to identify and learn more about those who exhibit thinking traits. Design Studies, 38, 92-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2015.02.002
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86, 84-92.
Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2009). Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 8(1), 31-35. https://doi.org/10.48558/58Z7-3J85
Carlgren, L., Rauth, I., & Elmquist, M. (2016). Framing design thinking: The concept in idea and enactment. Creativity and Innovation Management, 25(1), 38-57. https://doi.org/10.1111/ caim.12153
Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment (Vol. 17). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985642
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 & Design Education, 29(1), 37-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070. 2010.01632.x
Charnley, F., Lemon, M., & Evans, S. (2011). Exploring the process of whole system design. Design Studies, 32(2), 156-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2010.08.002
Cheng, Y.-Y., Wang, W.-C., & Ho, Y.-H. (2009). Multidimensional Rasch analysis of a psychological test with multiple subtests: A statistical solution for the bandwidth-fidelity dilemma. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(3), 369-388. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0013164408323241
Chesson, D. (2017). Design thinker profile: Creating and validating a scale for measuring design thinking capabilities [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Antioch University.
Chou, D. C. (2018). Applying design thinking method to social entrepreneurship project. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 55, 73-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2017.05.001
Coley, F., & Lemon, M. (2009). Exploring the design and perceived benefit of sustainable solutions: A review. Journal of Engineering Design, 20, 543-554.
Corrales-Estrada, M. (2020). Design thinkers’ profiles and design thinking solutions. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, 33(1), 9-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARLA-01- 2018-0028
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, 103806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103806
Dell’Era, C., Magistretti, S., Cautela, C., Verganti, R., & Zurlo, F. (2020). Four kinds of design thinking: From ideating to making, engaging, and criticizing. Creativity and Innovation Management, 29(2), 324-344. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12353
Dorst, K. (2011). The core of “design thinking” and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521-532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006
Dosi, C., Rosati, F., & Vignoli, M. (2018). Measuring design thinking mindset. In D. Marjanović, M. Štorga, S. Škec, N. Bojčetić, & N. Pavković (Eds.), DS 92: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2018 15th international design conference (pp. 1991-2002). Dubrovnik. https://doi.org/10.21278/ idc.2018.0493
Dunne, D., & Martin, R. (2006). Design thinking and how it will change management education: An interview and discussion. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(4), 512-523. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2006.23473212
Elsbach, K. D., & Stigliani, I. (2018). Design thinking and organizational culture: A review and framework for future research. Journal of Management, 44(6), 2274-2306. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0149206317744252
Gallagher, J. J. (1985). Teaching the gifted child (3rd ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Giacomin, J. (2014). What is human centred design? The Design Journal, 17(4), 606-623. https:// doi.org/10.2752/175630614X14056185480186.
Goldman, S., & Kabayadondo, Z. (Eds.). (2017). Taking design thinking to school: How the technology of design can transform teachers, learners, and classrooms. Routledge.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/ 10.4324/9780203781098
Gruber, M., Leon, N. D., George, G., & Thompson, P. (2015). Managing by design. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.4001
Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (Eds.). (1993). Differential item functioning. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hung, S.-P. (2018). Validating the creative self-efficacy student scale with a Taiwanese sample: An item response theory-based investigation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27, 190-203. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.02.006
Jamal, T., Kircher, J., & Donaldson, J. P. (2021). Re-visiting design thinking for learning and practice: Critical pedagogy, conative empathy. Sustainability, 13(2), 1-25. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su13020964
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
Junginger, S. (2007). Learning to design: Giving purpose to heart, hand, and mind. Journal of Business Strategy, 28(4), 59-65. https://doi.org/10.1108/02756660710760953
Kuo, H.-C., Yang, Y.-T. C., Chen, J.-S., Hou, T.-W., & Ho, M.-T. (2021). The impact of design thinking PBL robot course on college students’ learning motivation and creative thinking. IEEE Transactions on Education, 65(2), 124-131. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2021.3098295
Ladachart, L., Ladachart, L., Phothong, W., & Suaklay, N. (2019). Validation of a design thinking mindset questionnaire with Thai elementary teachers. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1835(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1835/1/012088
Lauff, C. A. (2018). Prototyping in the wild: The role of prototypes in companies [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Colorado.
Lauff, C. A., Knight, D., Kotys-Schwartz, D., & Rentschler, M. E. (2020). The role of prototypes in communication between stakeholders. Design Studies, 66(6), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.destud.2019.11.007
Liedtka, J. (2011). Learning to use design thinking tools for successful innovation. Strategy & Leadership, 39(5), 13-19. https://doi.org/10.1108/10878571111161480
Liedtka, J. (2015). Perspective: Linking design thinking with innovation outcomes through cognitive bias reduction. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(6), 925-938. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/jpim.12163
Lim, Y.-K., Stolterman, E., & Tenenberg, J. (2008). The anatomy of prototypes: As filters, prototypes as manifestations of design ideas. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 15(2), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1145/1375761.1375762
Linacre, J. M. (1998). Thurstone thresholds and the Rasch model. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 12, 634-635.
Linton, G., & Klinton, M. (2019). University entrepreneurship education: A design thinking approach to learning. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 8(3), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s13731-018-0098-z
Lockwood, T. (2010a). Design thinking in business: An interview with Gianfranco Zaccai. Design Management Review, 21(3), 16-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1948-7169.2010.00074.x
Lockwood, T. (2010b). Design thinking: Integrating innovation, customer experience, and brand value. Allworth Press.
Lor, R. (2017, May). Design thinking in education: A critical review of literature [Paper presentation]. Asian Conference on Education & Psychology, Bangkok, Thailand.
Luka, I. (2019). Design thinking in pedagogy: Frameworks and uses. European Journal of Education, 54(4), 499-512. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12367
Luppescu, S. (1993). DIF detection examined. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 7(2), 285-286.
Martin, R. L. (2007). The opposable mind: How successful leaders win through integrative thinking. Harvard Business Review Press.
Martin, R. L. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Harvard Business Review Press.
Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149-174.
Mehalik, M. M., & Schunn, C. (2006). What constitutes good design? A review of empirical studies of design processes. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(3), 519-532.
Micheli, P., Wilner, S. J. S., Bhatti, S. H., Mura, M., & Beverland, M. B. (2019). Doing design thinking: Conceptual review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36(2), 124-148. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12466
Novak, E., & Mulvey, B. K. (2021). Enhancing design thinking in instructional technology students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(1), 80-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12470
Noweski, C., Scheer, A., Büttner, N., von Thienen, J., Erdmann, J., & Meinel, C. (2012). Towards a paradigm shift in education practice: Developing twenty-first century skills with design thinking. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking research (pp. 71-94). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31991-4_5
Owen, C. L. (2005, October 21). Design thinking. What it is. Why it is different. Where it has new value [Paper presentation]. The International Conference on Design Research and Education for the Future, Gwangju City, Korea.
Petrosoniak, A., Hicks, C., Barratt, L., Gascon, D., Kokoski, C., Campbell, D., White, K., Bandiera, G., Lum-Kwong, M. M., Nemoy, L., & Brydges R. (2020). Design thinking-informed simulation: An innovative framework to test, evaluate, and modify new clinical infrastructure. Simulation in Healthcare, 15(3), 205-213. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000408
Raju, N. S., Price, L. R., Oshima, T. C., & Nering, M. L. (2007). Standardized conditional SEM: A case for conditional reliability. Applied Psychological Measurement, 31, 169-180. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0146621606291569
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Denmark Institute of Educational Research. (Expanded edition, 1980. The University of Chicago Press)
Rauth, I., Köppen, E., Jobst, B., & Meinel, C. (2010, December). Design thinking: An educational model towards creative confidence. The 1st International Conference on Design Creativity (ICDC 2010), Kobe, Japan.
Rowe, P. G. (1987). Design thinking. MIT Press.
Sandars, J., & Goh, P.-S. (2020). Design thinking in medical education: The key features and practical application. Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development, 7, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1177/2382120520926518
Schumacker, R. E., & Smith, E. V., Jr. (2007). Reliability: A Rasch perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67(3), 394-409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164406294776
Shapira, H., Ketchie, A., & Nehe, M. (2017). The integration of design thinking and strategic sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 277-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2015.10.092
Telliel, Y. D. (2020). Decentring design thinking for development engineering. In F. Vukić & I. Kostešić (Eds.), Lessons to learn? Past design experiences and contemporary design practices (pp. 709-719). UPI2M Books.
Tsai, M.-J., & Wang, C.-Y. (2021). 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
Wang, W.-C. (2008). Assessment of differential item functioning. Journal of Applied Measurement, 9(4), 387-408.
Whang, L., Tawatao, C., Danneker, J., Belanger, J., Edward Weber, S., Garcia, L., & Klaus, A. (2017). Understanding the transfer student experience using design thinking. Reference Services Review, 45(2), 298-313. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-10-2016-0073
Wilson, M. (2004). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410611697
Wolfe, E. W., & Smith, E. V., Jr. (2007). Instrument development tools and activities for measure validation using Rasch models: Part II-Validation activities. Journal of Applied Measurement, 8(2), 204-234.
Woolfolk, A. E. (1987). Educational psychology (3rd ed.). Prentice-Hall.
Wrigley, C., & Straker, K. (2015). Design thinking pedagogy: The educational design ladder. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(4), 374-385. http://doi.org/10.1080/ 14703297.2015.1108214
Wu, M.-L., Adams, R. J., Wilson, M. R., & Haldane, S. A. (2007). ConQuest [Computer software and manual]. Australian Council for Educational Research.
Yang, M.-C., & Epstein, D. J. (2005). A study of prototypes, design activity, and design outcome. Design Studies, 26(6), 649-669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2005.04.005
Yen, W.-H., Chang, C.-C., & Williams, J. (2021). Gender differences in engineering design thinking in a project-based STEAM course. In Y. M. Huang, C. F. Lai & T. Rocha (Eds.), Innovative Technologies and Learning - 4th International Conference ICITL 2021 (pp. 557-566). Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH.

中文APA引文格式	王佳琪、楊琬琳、宋世祥（2024）。跨領域設計思考者特質量表之建構。教育科學研究期刊，69（2），135-172。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202406_69(2).0005
APA Format	Wang, C.-C., Yang, W.-L., & Wang, Y.-L. (2024). Development of a Cross-Disciplinary Design Thinker Trait Scale. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 69(2), 135-172.

Journal directory listing - Volume 69 (2024) - Journal of Research in Education Sciences【68(6)】June

Top

Development of a Cross-Disciplinary Design Thinker Trait Scale Author: Chia-Chi Wang( Department of Education, National Kaohsiung Normal University), Wan-Lin Yang (Center of Teacher Education, National Cheng Kung University), Shih-Hsiang Sung (Program in Interdisciplinary Studies, National Sun Yat-sen University)

Vol.&No.：Vol. 69, No. 2
Date：June 2024
Pages：135-172
DOI：https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202406_69(2).0005

Abstract：
Background and Purpose
The cultivation of interdisciplinary talent is a global trend, with design thinking emerging as a crucial approach to interdisciplinary learning (Mehalik & Schunn, 2006). However, challenges arise when the definition or process of design thinking varies across fields (Chesson, 2017), leading to difficulties in establishing consistent measurement tools for assessing design thinking. Currently, the analysis employed in the development of design thinking tools primarily relies on factor analysis, which often results in an unstable factor structure and relatively subjective measurements related to design thinking.
The aim of this study was to develop a scale named the Cross-Disciplinary Design Thinker Trait Scale with sufficient reliability and validity. Specifically, experts in the field reexamined the traits of design thinkers based on the relevant literature, and similar concepts were integrated into a single dimension. The Rasch Partial Credit Model was applied to examine the developed scale’s psychometric properties, providing multiple forms of evidence to establish the scale’s reliability and validity. This tool is intended to support the assessment and enhancement of design thinking abilities in both educational and professional contexts.
Literature Review
Throughout the late 2010s and early 2020s, design thinking gained widespread recognition as a highly effective approach for fostering innovation and creativity within corporate and organizational contexts. This surge in the popularity of design thinking can be partially attributed to vigorous promotion by influential entities such as IDEO, a prominent design company based in the United States, and the d.school at Stanford University. As a practical approach, design thinking is considered capable of addressing complex problems and enhancing various aspects related to work culture, communication, innovation, and overall organizational success.
As design thinking evolves into an interdisciplinary, human-centered approach to innovation, scholars have identified key factors for its success. With design thinking becoming increasingly central to future talent development in educational institutions and professional skill enhancement in workplaces, educators now face the challenge of effectively assessing teaching and learning outcomes. In this context, understanding learners’ inherent design thinking traits is essential. Empirical investigations into the definitions of design thinking and the traits of design thinkers have consistently highlighted several dimensions, including human-centeredness, empathy, integrative thinking, innovative thinking, a motivational mindset, tolerance for uncertainty and failure, interdisciplinary collaboration, prototyping, iteration, optimism, positive beliefs, visualization of ideas, problem solving, and a willingness to embrace risks. A review of existing scales related to design thinking reveals overlap in the trait components of design thinkers; however, a variety of factor structures emerge. This inconsistency arises from exploratory factor analyses being data driven and thus leading to the extraction of common factors based on correlations in respondents’ reactions to each item. Factor structure determination relies entirely on respondent reactions and thus overlooks the theoretical foundation of the measured constructs. Consequently, problems related to sample dependence may lead to inconsistent factor structures (Gorsuch, 1983). In other words, existing design thinking measurement tools have exhibited a degree of subjectivity in their development and analytical methods.
The Rasch model in item response theory (Rasch, 1960) is regarded as effective for addressing problems related to test dependence and sample dependence because of its properties of item independence, sample independence, and equidistance. The Rasch model has been widely applied in various fields— including education, psychology, and health care (Wang, 2004)— a nd is particularly suitable for examining the psychometric properties of measurement scales. On the basis of these considerations, the primary objective of this study was to develop a reliable and valid scale named the Cross-Disciplinary Design Thinker Trait Scale. The Rasch model was employed to examine the psychometric properties of this scale and to validate the scale.
Method
This study focused on college students in Taiwan and recruited two samples: a pilot sample and a formal sample. The pilot sample, comprising 208 participants, was used to assess the quality of the Cross-Disciplinary Design Thinker Trait Scale’s items. The formal sample, comprising 529 college students, was utilized to examine the scale’s reliability and validity.
Following the method of expert review and revision to examine item contents, the traits of design thinkers were categorized into eight dimensions: human-centeredness; empathy; integrative thinking; creative thinking; dynamic mindset; tolerance of ambiguity and failure; interdisciplinary collaboration; and prototyping, iteration, and experimentation. The scale consisted of 37 items, each rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (completely inconsistent) to 4 (completely consistent.
ConQuest software (Wu et al., 2007) was used for all Rasch analyses. This study examined the Design Thinker Trait Scale’s reliability and validity to provide evidence of its content validity, structural validity, generalizability validity, interpretability validity, substantive validity, and external evidence validity (Wolfe & Smith, 2007).
Results
In the preliminary data analysis, the results indicated that most items demonstrated strong fit. The formal data analysis revealed that the aforementioned eight dimensions of design thinker traits exhibited strong model fit, providing evidence of content and structural validity. Regarding generalizability validity, most items on the Cross-Disciplinary Design Thinker Trait Scale retained consistent meaning in relation to students of different genders, except for one item in the empathy dimension, which revealed a significant difference in interpretation between male and female students. Furthermore, the person separation reliabilities of the eight dimensions were all appropriate, ranging from .81 to .87. The evidence regarding interpretative validity revealed that the level of design thinking traits among university students exceeded the difficulty of the test items in all eight dimensions, indicating a relatively high level of design thinking traits among the participants. Regarding evidence of substantive validity, each of the items measured on a 5-point Likert scale to assess students’ trait levels appeared suitable. Additionally, regarding external evidence validity, a significantly high correlation existed between the Cross-Disciplinary Design Thinker Trait Scale and the Creative Self-Efficacy Scale, suggesting that the Cross-Disciplinary Design Thinker Trait Scale demonstrated sufficient criterion-related validity.
Discussion and Suggestions
Regarding future scale application and development, given the correlation between organizational culture and the use of design thinking tools, researchers should investigate variations in design thinking trait tendencies across multiple disciplines (Elsbach & Stigliani, 2018). In education, integrating design thinking into curriculum design, teaching methodologies, and teacher training is recommended (Lor, 2017). Such integration could include planning strategies and learning materials responsive to the aforementioned eight traits of design thinking with a view to cultivating students’ abilities and fostering innovation and interdisciplinary competencies. In addition, schools should consider offering courses that inspire design thinking, enhance elective options, and encourage cross-disciplinary sharing among students to balance or amplify their potential for design thinking. Moreover, using the Cross-Disciplinary Design Thinker Trait Scale in teacher training could provide insights into students’ thought processes and facilitate the design of interdisciplinary collaborative learning experiences. Future efforts should involve more systematic investigations and comparisons of design thinking traits among Taiwanese students to contribute to a deeper understanding of such traits and to establish comprehensive links among curriculum, teaching, and assessment.

Keywords：Rasch partial credit model, design thinking, design thinker trait, cross-disciplinary

本網站獲「科技部人文社會科學研究中心」補助

地址：臺北市大安區和平東路一段162號國立臺灣師範大學圖書館出版中心

電話：(02)7749-5279

CONTRIBUTORSNOTICE

期刊目錄列表 - 69卷(2024) - 【教育科學研究期刊】69(2)六月刊 回上一頁

跨領域設計思考者特質量表之建構 作者:國立高雄師範大學教育學系王佳琪、國立成功大學師資培育中心楊琬琳、國立中山大學人文暨科技跨領域學士學位學程宋世祥

Journal directory listing - Volume 69 (2024) - Journal of Research in Education Sciences【68(6)】June Top

CONTRIBUTORS
NOTICE

期刊目錄列表 - 69卷(2024) - 【教育科學研究期刊】69(2)六月刊

回上一頁

跨領域設計思考者特質量表之建構作者:國立高雄師範大學教育學系王佳琪、國立成功大學師資培育中心楊琬琳、國立中山大學人文暨科技跨領域學士學位學程宋世祥

Journal directory listing - Volume 69 (2024) - Journal of Research in Education Sciences【68(6)】June

Top