SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama / 2026 / Cilt: 22 Sayı: 2

Examining Educational Approaches and Learning Outcomes of Design Thinking in K-12: A Systematic Literature Review

Tasarım Odaklı Düşünmenin K-12 Düzeyinde Eğitim Yaklaşımları ve Öğrenme Kazanımları Açısından İncelenmesi: Bir Sistematik Literatür Taraması

Şükran Koç(GAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, GAZİ EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ)0009-0008-3110-6576
Hasan Çakır(GAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, GAZİ EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-4499-9712
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-10-16
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Promising avenues for prospective inquiry remain particularly open within the categories of “Research Design and Methodology” and “Pedagogy and Teaching.”

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Design thinking (DT) serves as a fundamental pedagogical framework structuring learning processes in K-12 education, primarily aiming to equip students with 21st-century competencies and foster human-centered solutions to real-world challenges.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This systematic literature review synthesizes 37 qualifying journal articles indexed in the Web of Science database and published between 2016 and 2026 to examine the scope of DT, the educational approaches used, the intended learning objectives and the documented learning outcomes as independent analytical dimensions, and future research directions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Promising avenues for prospective inquiry remain particularly open within the categories of “Research Design and Methodology” and “Pedagogy and Teaching.”
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Duygusal gelişim · Eğitim yaklaşımları · K-12

Abstract

Design thinking (DT) serves as a fundamental pedagogical framework structuring learning processes in K-12 education, primarily aiming to equip students with 21st-century competencies and foster human-centered solutions to real-world challenges. This systematic literature review synthesizes 37 qualifying journal articles indexed in the Web of Science database and published between 2016 and 2026 to examine the scope of DT, the educational approaches used, the intended learning objectives and the documented learning outcomes as independent analytical dimensions, and future research directions. The studies are predominantly characterized by mixed-methods and qualitative designs, focus primarily on the middle school level, and center on STEM/STEAM disciplines. DT is frequently integrated with complementary frameworks such as the Engineering Design Process. The most frequently targeted learning objectives concern cognitive skills, 21st-century competencies, and STEM/STEAM skills; analyzed independently, the most prominent reported learning outcomes concern cognitive skills, 21st-century competencies, and affective development. To fully realize DT’s substantial potential for improving educational outcomes, future research must address its systematic curricular integration, examine longitudinal impacts, and strengthen teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Promising avenues for prospective inquiry remain particularly open within the categories of “Research Design and Methodology” and “Pedagogy and Teaching.”

Özet

Tasarım odaklı düşünme (TOD), K-12 eğitiminde öğrenme süreçlerini yapılandıran temel bir pedagojik çerçeve işlevi görmekte; öncelikli olarak öğrencileri 21. yüzyıl yetkinlikleriyle donatmayı ve gerçek dünya sorunlarına insan odaklı çözümler geliştirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu sistematik literatür derlemesi, TOD’un kapsamını, TOD ile birlikte tercih edilen eğitim yaklaşımlarını, birbirinden bağımsız boyutlar olarak ele alınan hedeflenen öğrenme amaçlarını, raporlanan öğrenme kazanımlarını ve gelecekteki araştırmalara ilişkin tavsiyeleri incelemek amacıyla Web of Science veri tabanında indekslenen ve 2016–2026 yılları arasında yayımlanan, kriterlere uygun 37 hakemli makaleyi sentezlemektedir. Bulgular, giderek artan araştırma hacminin 2025 yılında zirveye ulaştığını göstermektedir. Metodolojik olarak karma yöntemlerin ve nitel araştırmaların öne çıktığı çalışmalar, ağırlıklı olarak ortaokul düzeyine ve STEM/STEAM disiplinlerine odaklanmaktadır. TOD, sıklıkla mühendislik tasarım süreci gibi tamamlayıcı çerçevelerle entegre edilmektedir. Analiz sonuçları, araştırmalarda hedeflenen amaçların en çok bilişsel beceriler, 21. yüzyıl yetkinlikleri ve STEM/STEAM becerilerine odaklandığını; bağımsız olarak incelenen öğrenme kazanımlarında ise en çok bilişsel beceriler, 21. yüzyıl yetkinlikleri ve duyuşsal/duygusal gelişimin öne çıktığını göstermektedir. TOD’un eğitimsel kazanımları geliştirme yönündeki önemli potansiyelini tam olarak hayata geçirmek için gelecekteki araştırmaların bu yaklaşımın müfredata sistematik entegrasyonunu ele alması, boylamsal etkileri incelemesi ve öğretmenlerin pedagojik alan bilgilerini güçlendirmesi gerekmektedir. Geleceğe dönük incelemeler için araştırma fırsatları, özellikle “Araştırma Tasarımı ve Metodolojisi” ile “Pedagoji ve Öğretim” kategorilerinde öne çıkmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Koç, Ş., Çakır, H. (2026). Examining Educational Approaches and Learning Outcomes of Design Thinking in K-12: A Systematic Literature Review. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, Cilt: 22 Sayı: 2. https://doi.org/10.17244/eku.2018269

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (68)

  1. Aflatoony, L., Wakkary, R., & Neustaedter, C. (2018). Becoming a design thinker: Assessing the learning process of students in a secondary level design thinking course. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 37(3), 438–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12139
  2. Arifin, S., & Siew, N. M. (2023). Integration of socioscientific approach and design thinking: An entrepreneurial creative thinking module for STEM education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 22(5), 767–780. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/23.22.767
  3. Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84.
  4. Chang, Y.-S. (2025). Engagement, academic emotions, and artificial intelligence application creativity in the metaverse: A study of facial expressions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 41(3), Article e70030. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.70030
  5. Chen, P., Wang, R., & Ma, Y. (2025). Promoting junior high school students’ creativity in maker education: The design thinking approach. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 56, Article 101764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2025.101764
  6. Çavuş, E., İdil, Ş., & Dönmez, İ. (2026). Effects of a design-based research approach on fourth-grade students’ critical thinking, problem-solving skills, computational thinking, and creativity self-efficacy. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 36(1), 41–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-025-09989-8
  7. Çiftçi, A., & Topçu, M. (2023). Supporting 7th-grade students’ model-based explanations about energy transformations through design thinking. Education and Science, 48(215), 31–53. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2023.11605
  8. Dam, R. F., & Siang, T. Y. (2021, December). What is design thinking and why is it so popular? Interaction Design Foundation. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/what-is-design-thinking-and-why-is-it-so-popular
  9. 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
  10. Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.x
  11. Fabri, M. (2015). Thinking with a new purpose: Lessons learned from teaching design thinking skills to creative technology students. In A. Marcus (Ed.), Design, user experience, and usability: Design discourse (pp. 32–43). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20886-2_4
  12. Gao, L., Jong, M. S.-Y., Chai, C. S., & Li, K. (2026). STEM education: Understanding secondary students’ epistemic cognition in the design process with the support of a personalized multi-agent system. Computers & Education, 242, Article 105504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105504
  13. Gates, T. (2023). A case for design thinking and design-based learning in 21st century education. In Technology and the curriculum: Summer 2023. Power Learning Solutions. https://pressbooks.pub/techcurr2023/?p=34
  14. Gaylo, D. N. (2025). Learning by design: An exploration of mathematics teachers’ practice-based transformation. Journal of Multidisciplinary in Social Sciences, 21(2), 180–191. https://so03.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/sduhs/article/view/293034
  15. Gómez Puente, S. M., van Eijck, M., & Jochems, W. (2013). A sampled literature review of design-based learning approaches: A search for key characteristics. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(3), 717–732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-012-9212-x
  16. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). SAGE.
  17. He, W., Zheng, Y., Zhang, X., Liao, L., & Hu, X. (2026). Application of design thinking model for the improvement in engagement among primary students for STEM courses. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 35(2), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-025-01025-6
  18. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3
  19. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368
  20. Honra, J. R. (2025). Enhancing high school biology education students’ transdisciplinary thinking through design thinking. The Journal of Experimental Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2025.2606241
  21. Honra, J. R., & Monterola, S. L. C. (2025). Effects of biology design thinking, moderated by resilience, in enhancing cognitive flexibility. The Journal of Educational Research, 118(4), 376–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2025.2486477
  22. Hsiao, H.-S., Chang, Y.-C., Lin, K.-Y., Chen, J.-C., Lin, C.-Y., Chung, G.-H., & Chen, J.-H. (2023). Applying the design thinking model to hands-on mechatronics STEM activities for senior high school students to improve the learning performance and learning behavior. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 33(4), 1389–1408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09778-7
  23. Hsu, T.-P., & Hsu, T.-C. (2024). Iterative problem solving in the integration of design thinking and game-based learning into enhancing computational thinking and AI literacy. In International Conference on Computers in Education. Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education. https://doi.org/10.58459/icce.2024.4934
  24. Huang, B., Jong, M. S.-Y., Tsai, C.-C., & Shang, J. (2025). Unlocking students’ creative potential in designing technological-enriched design solutions. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 57(5), 1044–1060. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2024.2342915
  25. Interaction Design Foundation. (2016, May 25). What is design thinking? https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/design-thinking
  26. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09339057
  27. Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 215–239). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  28. Kemp, S. (2023). A design course for every student. Phi Delta Kappan, 105(1), 29–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/00317217231197473
  29. Kijima, R., & Sun, K. L. (2021). ‘Females don’t need to be reluctant’: Employing design thinking to harness creative confidence and interest in STEAM. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 40(1), 66–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12307
  30. Kim, J.-Y., Seo, J. S., & Kim, K. (2022). Development of novel-engineering-based maker education instructional model. Education and Information Technologies, 27(5), 7327–7371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10841-4
  31. Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Wong, B., & Hong, H.-Y. (2015). Design thinking and education. In Design thinking for education: Conceptions and applications in teaching and learning (pp. 1–15). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-444-3_1
  32. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Puntambekar, S., & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting Learning by Design™ into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1204_2
  33. Korosidou, E. (2026). Story-inspired design thinking: Advancing language learning and skill development with early childhood learners. Early Childhood Education Journal, 54(5), 3661–3673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-025-02101-8
  34. Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2005). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317–334). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816833.020
  35. Ladachart, L., Cholsin, J., Kwanpet, S., Teerapanpong, R., Dessi, A., Phuangsuwan, L., & Phothong, W. (2022). Ninth-grade students’ perceptions on the design-thinking mindset in the context of reverse engineering. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(5), 2445–2465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09701-6
  36. Ladachart, L., Radchanet, V., & Phothong, W. (2022). Design-thinking mindsets facilitating students’ learning of scientific concepts in design-based activities. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 19(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2021.106
  37. Ladachart, L., Radchanet, V., Phothong, W., & Ladachart, L. (2024). Nurturing middle school students’ creative confidence through design-based learning. Research in Science & Technological Education, 42(4), 1250–1263. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2023.2221199
  38. Li, T., & Zhan, Z. (2022). A systematic review on design thinking integrated learning in K-12 education. Applied Sciences, 12(16), Article 8077. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12168077
  39. Liang, W. J., & Lim, F. V. (2021). A pedagogical framework for digital multimodal composing in the English language classroom. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 15(4), 306–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2020.1800709
  40. Lin, H.-C., Chang, Y.-S., & Li, W\.-H. (2020). Effects of a virtual reality teaching application on engineering design creativity of boys and girls. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37, Article 100705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100705
  41. Lin, L., Dong, Y., Chen, X., Shadiev, R., Ma, Y., & Zhang, H. (2024). Exploring the impact of design thinking in information technology education: An empirical investigation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 51, Article 101450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101450
  42. Lin, L., Shadiev, R., Hwang, W\.-Y., & 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, Article 100646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100646
  43. Lin, L., Shen, S., Shadiev, R., & Yu, M. (2025). Review of research on design thinking in K-12 education. Educational Research Review, 47, Article 100682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2025.100682
  44. Liu, S., & Li, C. (2023). Promoting design thinking and creativity by making: A quasi-experiment in the information technology course. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 49, Article 101335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101335
  45. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). SAGE.
  46. Nichols, K., Musofer, R., Fynes-Clinton, L., & Blundell, R. (2022). Design thinking and inquiry behaviours are co-constituted in a community of inquiry middle years’ science classroom context: Empirical evidence for design thinking and pragmatist inquiry interconnections. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(5), 2527–2551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09711-4
  47. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S.,. Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, Article n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
  48. Panke, S. (2019). Design thinking in education: Perspectives, opportunities and challenges. Open Education Studies, 1(1), 281–306. https://doi.org/10.1515/edu-2019-0022
  49. 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
  50. Rusmann, A., & Ejsing-Duun, S. (2022). When design thinking goes to school: A literature review of design competences for the K-12 level. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(4), 2063–2091. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09692-4
  51. Ryu, M., & Go, I. (2026). Integrating environmental education and maker practices: A student-driven project to reduce energy loss. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-026-10070-1
  52. Santos, P., El Aadmi, K., Calvera-Isabal, M., & Rodríguez, A. (2025). Fostering students’ motivation and self-efficacy in science, technology, engineering, and design through design thinking and making in project-based learning: A gender-perspective study in primary education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 35(4), 1293–1319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-025-10001-6
  53. Saritepeci, M., & Yildiz Durak, H. (2024). Effectiveness of artificial intelligence integration in design-based learning on design thinking mindset, creative and reflective thinking skills: An experimental study. Education and Information Technologies, 29(18), 25175–25209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12829-2
  54. Siew, N. M., & Arifin, S. (2025). Fostering creative thinking in entrepreneurship among rural students through socio-scientific issues and design thinking integration in science education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 24(1), 169–186. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/25.24.169
  55. Simeon, M. I., Samsudin, M. A., & Yakob, N. (2022). 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(1), 185–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09601-1
  56. Stanford d.school. (2010). Bootcamp bootleg. Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford. https://dschool.stanford.edu/tools/design-thinking-bootleg
  57. Tang, K.-S., McLure, F., Williams, J., & Donnelly, C. (2024). Investigating the role of self-selected STEM projects in fostering student autonomy and self-directed learning. The Australian Educational Researcher, 51(5), 2355–2379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-024-00696-2
  58. Thomason, D., & Hsu, P.-L. (2025). The effect of a STEM integrated curriculum on design thinking dispositions in middle school students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 35(1), 83–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-024-09894-6
  59. Whiting, J. (2021). Student-centered learning by design. Libraries Unlimited. https://doi.org/10.5040/9798216020561
  60. Xu, W., Chen, J.-C., Lou, Y.-F., & Chen, H. (2024). Impacts of maker education-design thinking integration on knowledge, creative tendencies, and perceptions of the engineering profession. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 34(1), 75–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-023-09810-4
  61. Yaprak Bostancı, Ö., Öztürk, E., & Öztürk, G. (2026). Exploring second-grade students’ experiences through design-based learning in science education. The Journal of Educational Research, 119(2), 192–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2025.2590507
  62. Yeung, W\.-L., & Ng, O.-L. (2024). Using empathy maps to support design-thinking enhanced transdisciplinary STEM innovation in K-12 setting. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 34(4), 1325–1350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-023-09861-7
  63. Yulianti, E., Abdul Rahman, N. F., Suwono, H., & Phang, F. A. (2026). Transdisciplinary STEAM learning in improving students’ conceptual understanding of heat and temperature. Research in Science & Technological Education, 44(1), 117–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2025.2452542
  64. Zhang, F., Markopoulos, P., & Bekker, T. (2020). Children’s emotions in design-based learning: A systematic review. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(4), 459–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09830-y
  65. Zhang, F., Markopoulos, P., Bekker, T., Paule-Ruíz, M., & Schüll, M. (2022). Understanding design-based learning context and the associated emotional experience. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(2), 845–882. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09630-w
  66. Zhou, N., Pereira, N., Chandrasegaran, S., George, T. T., Booth, J., & Ramani, K. (2021). Examining middle school students’ engineering design processes in a design workshop. Research in Science Education, 51(Suppl. 2), 617–646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09893-x
  67. Zhu, L., Shu, L., Tian, P., Sun, D., & Luo, M. (2025). Facilitating students’ design thinking skills in science class: An exploratory study. International Journal of Science Education, 47(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2024.2309658
  68. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S.,. Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, Article n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71