Design Thinking as a Crucial Needs Assessment for Developing Innovative Design Competency in Pre-Service Teachers’ Learning Management in Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the needs assessment of design thinking to enhance innovative design competency in pre-service teachers’ learning management in Thailand. The research aimed to assess teaching performance and identify key areas for developing innovative design competency. A total of 346 pre-service teachers from universities across four regions of Thailand were selected using stratified random sampling and 20 key informants were purposively selected for in-depth interviews, comprising five primary school teachers, five secondary school teachers, five administrators, and five supervisors. Data collection involved questionnaires and in-depth interviews. The research instruments include a questionnaire about pre-service teachers’ opinions, a five-point Likert scale, and a structured interview form. Quantitative analysis included percentage, mean (M), standard deviation (S.D.), Priority Needs Index Modified (PNImodified), and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). Qualitative data focused on teaching performance issues in three areas: the learning innovation context, knowledge of learning innovations, and competencies in learning innovations. The findings showed that the teaching performance issues were significant (M = 3.52, S.D. = 0.41), and the need for developing innovative design competency was high (M = 4.66, S.D. = 0.29). Differences in the needs assessment among participants were minimal. The overall priority needs assessment index (PNImodified = 0.38) highlighted the urgent need to enhance innovative design competency in pre-service teachers’ learning management in Thailand. Respondents anticipate significant improvements, prioritizing the practical application of learning innovations. This necessitates training programs emphasizing practical implementation over theoretical knowledge. Priority Needs Index (PNImodified) values support a structured intervention focused on developing practical skills.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".