Active learning and design thinking effects on pre-service science teachers’ analytical thinking and achievement motivation

Pratya Thongpanit; Phichittra Thongpanit; Prachachart Onkhum

doi:10.29333/ejmste/19139

Full Text (PDF)

Pratya Thongpanit ¹ ^* , Phichittra Thongpanit ² ^* , Prachachart Onkhum ³

More Detail

¹ Faculty of Science, Nakhon Phanom University, Nakhon Phanom, THAILAND² Faculty of Education, Nakhon Phanom University, Nakhon Phanom, THAILAND³ That Phanom College, Nakhon Phanom University, Nakhon Phanom, THAILAND^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

This quasi-experimental study (N = 80) investigated the combined effects of active learning (AL) and design thinking (DT) on pre-service science teachers’ analytical thinking (AT) and achievement motivation (AM) at a Thai university. Grounded in self-determination theory, it proposes, as a theoretical interpretation, a “dual-pathway account” in which DT may support autonomy and AL may support competence. The 12-week intervention produced a significant multivariate effect (η²_p = .18). The experimental group outperformed the control group on AT (d = 0.69) and AM (d = 0.58), with a large within-group motivation gain (d_z = 0.91). These effects were larger than benchmarks for either approach alone, but such cross-study comparisons are interpretive rather than confirmatory. The findings provide preliminary evidence that the combined model is more effective than conventional instruction and warrant confirmation through factorial designs.

Keywords

analytical thinking
achievement motivation
active learning
design thinking
self-determination theory
pre-service science teachers

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, Volume 22, Issue 9, September 2026, Article No: em2903

https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/19139

Publication date: 13 Aug 2026

Article Views: 7

Article Downloads: 2

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Anderman, E. M. (2020). Achievement motivation theory: Balancing precision and utility. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, Article 101864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101864
Arifin, Z., Sukarmin, Saputro, S., & Kamari, A. (2025). The effect of inquiry-based learning on students’ critical thinking skills in science education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 21(3), Article em2592. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/15988
Aripin, I., Hidayat, T., Rustaman, N. Y., & Riandi, R. (2021). Prospective biology teachers’ research skills. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1806, Article 012170. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1806/1/012170
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom (ASHE-ERIC higher education report no. 1). ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.
Bureau, J. S., Howard, J. L., Chong, J. X. Y., & Guay, F. (2022). Pathways to student motivation: A meta-analysis of antecedents of autonomous and controlled motivations. Review of Educational Research, 92(1), 46-72. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211042426
Carayannis, E. G., & Morawska-Jancelewicz, J. (2022). The futures of Europe: Society 5.0 and Industry 5.0 as driving forces of future universities. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 13(4), 3445-3471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00854-2
Chen, C.-H., & Yang, Y.-C. (2019). Revisiting the effects of project-based learning on students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis investigating moderators. Educational Research Review, 26, 71-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.11.001
Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219-243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
Chigbu, B. I., & Makapela, S. L. (2025). AI in education, sustainability, and the future of work: An integrative review of Industry 5.0, Education 5.0, and Work 5.0. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 11(4), Article 100645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2025.100645
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2023). Artificial intelligence in higher education: The state of the field. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, Article 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8
Dehbozorgi, M. H., Postell, J., Ward, D., Leardi, C., Sullivan, B. P., & Rossi, M. (2024). Human in the loop: Revolutionizing Industry 5.0 with design thinking and systems thinking. Proceedings of the Design Society, 4, 245-254. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2024.27
Des Jarlais, D. C., Lyles, C., Crepaz, N., & the TREND Group. (2004). Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: The TREND statement. American Journal of Public Health, 94(3), 361-366. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.94.3.361
Double, K. S., McGrane, J. A., & Hopfenbeck, T. N. (2020). The impact of peer assessment on academic performance: A meta-analysis of control group studies. Educational Psychology Review, 32(2), 481-509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09510-3
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. PNAS, 111(23), 8410-8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Fry, G. W., & Bi, H. (2013). The evolution of educational reform in Thailand: The Thai educational paradox. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(3), 290-319. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231311311483
Gagaza, M. (2025). Reimagining Philippine education in the era of Education 5.0: Empowering teachers through generative artificial intelligence and design thinking. The Normal Lights, 19(2). https://doi.org/10.56278/tnl.v19i2.3386
González-Pérez, L. I., Ramírez-Montoya, M. S., & Enciso-González, J. A. (2023). Education 4.0 maturity models for Society 5.0: Systematic literature review. Cogent Business & Management, 10(3), Article 2256095. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2256095
Guay, F. (2022). Applying self-determination theory to education: Regulations types, psychological needs, and autonomy supporting behaviors. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 37(1), 75-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/08295735211055355
Guskey, T. R. (2023). Implementing mastery learning (3rd ed.). Corwin Press.
Henriksen, D., Richardson, C., & Mehta, R. (2017). Design thinking: A creative approach to educational problems of practice. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 26(12), 140-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.10.001
Howard, J. L., Bureau, J., Guay, F., Chong, J. X. Y., & Ryan, R. M. (2021). Student motivation and associated outcomes: A meta-analysis from self-determination theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1300-1323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966789
IDEO. (2012). Design thinking for educators (2nd ed.). IDEO.
Lazowski, R. A., & Hulleman, C. S. (2016). Motivation interventions in education: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 602-640. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315617832
Lehtinen, A., Kostiainen, E., & Näykki, P. (2023). Co-construction of knowledge and socioemotional interaction in pre-service teachers’ video-based online collaborative learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 133, Article 104299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104299
Liu, Y., & Pásztor, A. (2022). Effects of problem-based learning instructional intervention on critical thinking in higher education: A meta-analysis. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 45, Article 101069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101069
Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (2006). The new taxonomy of educational objectives. Corwin Press.
McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276-282. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031
McLaughlin, J. E., Wolcott, M. D., Hubbard, D., Umstead, K., & Rider, T. R. (2019). A qualitative review of the design thinking framework in health professions education. BMC Medical Education, 19, Article 98. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1528-8
Minet, A., Wentzel, D., Raff, S., & Garbas, J. (2024). Design thinking in physical and virtual environments. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 207, Article 123596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123596
Muneer, S., Santhosh, M., Parangusan, H., & Bhadra, J. (2025). A meta-analysis to explore the role of design thinking in enhancing creativity as learning outcomes in STEM education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 36(2), 919-949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-025-10005-2
National Strategy Secretariat Office. (2018). National strategy 2018-2037. Royal Thai Government Gazette.
OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (volume I and II) – Country notes. OECD Publishing.
Pande, M., & Bharathi, S. V. (2020). Theoretical foundations of design thinking – A constructivism learning approach. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 36, Article 100637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100637
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
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
Reeve, J., & Cheon, S. H. (2024). Learning how to become an autonomy-supportive teacher begins with perspective taking: A randomized control trial and model test. Teaching and Teacher Education, 148, Article 104702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104702
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61(3), Article 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
Sangwanglao, J. (2024). Competency-based education reform of Thailand’s basic education system: A policy review. ECNU Review of Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311241240486
Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010). CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ, 340, Article c332. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c332
Schunk, D., Meece, J., & Pintrich, P. (2014). Motivation in education (4th ed.). Pearson.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
Shahidi Hamedani, S., Aslam, S., Mundher Oraibi, B. A., Wah, Y. B., & Shahidi Hamedani, S. (2024). Transitioning towards tomorrow’s workforce: Education 5.0 in the landscape of Society 5.0. Education Sciences, 14(10), Article 1041. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14101041
Strat, T. T. S., Henriksen, E. K., & Jegstad, K. M. (2024). Inquiry-based science education in science teacher education: A systematic review. Studies in Science Education, 60(2), 191-249. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2023.2207148
Struck Jannini, A. V., Akdemir, Z., & Menekse, M. (2024). Achievement goal theory in STEM education: A systematic review. Journal of Engineering Education, 113(4), 986-1007. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20585
Theobald, E. J., Hill, M. J., Tran, E., Agrawal, S., Arroyo, E. N., Behling, S., Chambwe, N., Cintrón, D. L., Cooper, J. D., Dunster, G., Grummer, J. A., Hennessey, K., Hsiao, J., Iranon, N., Jones, L., Jordt, H., Keller, M., Lacey, M. E., Littlefield, C. E., ... Freeman, S. (2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. PNAS, 117(12), 6476-6483. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916903117
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
Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., Baran, E., Siddiq, F., Valtonen, T., & Sointu, E. (2019). Teacher educators as gatekeepers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1189-1209. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12748
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
World Economic Forum. (2023). Future of jobs report 2023. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-future-of-jobs-report-2023
Wrigley, C., & Straker, K. (2017). Design thinking pedagogy: The educational design ladder. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(4), 374-385. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1108214
Yu, Q., Yu, K., & Lin, R. (2024). A meta-analysis of the effects of design thinking on student learning. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), Article 742. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03237-5
Zhang, L., & Ma, Y. (2023). A study of the impact of project-based learning on student learning effects: A meta-analysis study. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1202728

How to cite this article

APA

Thongpanit, P., Thongpanit, P., & Onkhum, P. (2026). Active learning and design thinking effects on pre-service science teachers’ analytical thinking and achievement motivation. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 22(9), em2903. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/19139

Vancouver

Thongpanit P, Thongpanit P, Onkhum P. Active learning and design thinking effects on pre-service science teachers’ analytical thinking and achievement motivation. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2026;22(9):em2903. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/19139

AMA

Thongpanit P, Thongpanit P, Onkhum P. Active learning and design thinking effects on pre-service science teachers’ analytical thinking and achievement motivation. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2026;22(9), em2903. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/19139

Chicago

Thongpanit, Pratya, Phichittra Thongpanit, and Prachachart Onkhum. "Active learning and design thinking effects on pre-service science teachers’ analytical thinking and achievement motivation". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2026 22 no. 9 (2026): em2903. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/19139

Harvard

Thongpanit, P., Thongpanit, P., and Onkhum, P. (2026). Active learning and design thinking effects on pre-service science teachers’ analytical thinking and achievement motivation. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 22(9), em2903. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/19139

MLA

Thongpanit, Pratya et al. "Active learning and design thinking effects on pre-service science teachers’ analytical thinking and achievement motivation". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 22, no. 9, 2026, em2903. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/19139