Innovation in Action: How Design Thinking is Shaping the Future of STEM Education
Keywords:
Bibliometric analysis; design thinking; science mapping; STEM education; VOSviewerAbstract
Design thinking has emerged as a significant pedagogical approach in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education, promoting creativity, problem-solving, and innovation among learners. Despite its increasing relevance, the knowledge base surrounding design thinking in STEM education remains fragmented across disciplines. This study conducted a comprehensive science mapping analysis to examine the intellectual, conceptual, and thematic structure of the field. A total of 897 Scopus-indexed publications from 2010 to 2025 were analyzed using citation, co-citation, and co-word techniques through VOSviewer. Results showed a consistent growth in scholarly output, with the United States (US), China, and Australia identified as the top contributing countries. Citation analysis highlighted influential foundational works that anchor the field and shape ongoing research directions. Co-citation mapping revealed interconnected intellectual traditions related to engineering education, reflective practice, and pedagogical innovation. Co-word analysis further identified three dominant thematic clusters: design-oriented pedagogies, teacher professional development, and interdisciplinary applications of design thinking within STEM learning environments. Overlay visualization of keywords demonstrated an emerging shift toward contemporary priorities, including sustainability, artificial intelligence (AI), and inclusive education, indicating a broadening of the field’s pedagogical and societal relevance. These findings provide a structured understanding of how design thinking has evolved within STEM education, offering insights that can guide future scholarly inquiry. The study highlights the importance of transdisciplinary collaboration and context-responsive pedagogical models in strengthening the integration and long-term sustainability of design thinking in STEM education.
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.25.4.50
References
Antonio, R. P., & Sison, L. R. C. (2026). Can artificial intelligence (AI) shape the future of teacher education? Drawing evidence-based insights for teacher preparation. International Journal of Instruction, 19(1), 257-280.
Ammar, M., Al-Thani, N. J., & Ahmad, Z. (2024). Role of pedagogical approaches in fostering innovation among K–12 students in STEM education. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 9, 100839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.100839
Ardanuy, J. (2012). Scientific communication and bibliometrics. In R. Campbell, E. Pentz, & I. Borthwick (Eds.), Academic and professional publishing. Chandos Publishing.
Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
Baas, J., Schotten, M., Plume, A., Côté, G., & Karimi, R. (2020). Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00019
Becker, K., & Mentzer, N. (2015, September). Engineering design thinking: High school students' performance and knowledge [Conference session]. 2015 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL) (pp. 5-12). IEEE.
Bellanca, J. A., & Brandt, R. S. (2010). 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn. Solution Tree Press.
Bequette, J. W., & Bequette, M. B. (2012). A place for art and design education in the STEM conversation. Art Education, 65(2), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2012.11519167
Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2010). Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(12), 2389–2404. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21419
Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. HarperCollins.
Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. National Science Teachers Association. https://static.nsta.org/pdfs/samples/PB337Xweb.pdf
Chai, C. S. (2019). Teacher professional development for science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education: A review from the perspectives of technological pedagogical content (TPACK). The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 28(1), 5-13.
Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1382–1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525
Cook, K. L., & Bush, S. B. (2018). Design thinking in integrated STEAM learning: Surveying the landscape and exploring exemplars in elementary grades. School Science and Mathematics, 118(3-4), 93-103.
Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). A scholarship of integration: The matrix of informed design. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738-797.
Cross, N. (2023). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285-296.
Dove, G., Halskov, K., Forlizzi, J., & Zimmerman, J. (2017, May). UX design innovation: Challenges for working with machine learning as a design material. In Proceedings of the 2017 Chi Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems (pp. 278-288).
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.
Elwood, K. (2018). Design thinking instructional problems (DTIP): Exploring the perspectives of K-14 STEM teachers on the DTIP approach to developing instructional lessons. Arizona State University.
English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1
English, L. D., & King, D. T. (2015). STEM learning through engineering design: Fourth-grade students’ investigations in aerospace. International Journal of Stem Education, 2(1), 14.
Geng, J., Jong, M. S. Y., & Chai, C. S. (2019). Hong Kong teachers’ self-efficacy and concerns about STEM education. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 28(1), 35-45.
Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of thought. MIT Press.
Ghufrooni, R. (2024). Trends of design thinking research in STEM education: Bibliometric analysis. Journal of Research in Environmental and Science Education, 1(1), 12–28. https://doi.org/10.70232/fbzhy395
Henriksen, D., Richardson, C., & Mehta, R. (2017). Design thinking: A creative approach to educational problems of practice. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 26, 140–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.10.001
Hey, J., Linsey, J., Agogino, A. M., & Wood, K. L. (2008). Analogies and metaphors in creative design. International Journal of Engineering Education, 24(2), 283.
Kleminski, R., Kazienko, P., & Kajdanowicz, T. (2020b). Analysis of direct citation, co-citation and bibliographic coupling in scientific topic identification. Journal of Information Science, 48 issue 3(48), 016555152096277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551520962775
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.
Kuo, H. C., Tseng, Y. C., & Yang, Y. T. C. (2019). Promoting student motivation through a STEM PBL course. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 1–10.
Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Taylor & Francis.
Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., DiSessa, A. A., Graesser, A. C., Benson, L. C., English, L. D., & Duschl, R. A. (2019). Design and design thinking in STEM education. Journal for STEM Education Research, 2(2), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-019-00020-z
Li, T., & Zhan, Z. (2022). A systematic review on design thinking integrated learning in K-12 education. Applied Sciences, 12(16), 8077.
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
Merigó, J. M., & Yang, J.-B. (2017). A bibliometric analysis of operations research and management science. Omega, 73, 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2016.12.004
Mintrop, R. (2020). Design-based school improvement: A practical guide for education leaders. Harvard Education Press.
Moral-Muñoz, J. A., Herrera-Viedma, E., Santisteban-Espejo, A., & Cobo, M. J. (2020). Software tools for conducting bibliometric analysis in science: An up-to-date review. Professional de la Información, 29(1), e290103. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.ene.03
Mukherjee, S., Lin, Y., & Bozeman, B. (2021). Topical distance and knowledge recombination: An analysis of U.S. patent citations. Research Policy, 50(6), 104265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104265
National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. National Research Council. https://nrc.canada.ca/en
National Research Council, Board on Science Education, & Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. https://www.nationalacademies.org/projects/DBASSE-CFE-09-16/publication/13165
Nordin, N. S., Junaidi, J., & Abdul Hanid, M. F. (2024). Integrating problem-based learning and design thinking: Innovative approaches to enhancing student engagement. Journal of Research, Innovation, and Strategies for Education (RISE), 1(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.70148/rise.4
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. Measuring performance in context (pp. 71–94). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31991-4_5
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
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. Basic Books.
Su, H. N., & Lee, P. C. (2020). Mapping knowledge structure by keyword co-occurrence: A first look at journal papers in technology foresight. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 154, 119983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119983
Van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523-538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
Zupic, I., & ?ater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 RS Wilson Del Rosario Constantino, Ronilo Palle Antonio, Marivette Miranda, Anna Dominique Tallara, Freya Gay Avenir Jingco
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
All articles published by IJLTER are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No-Derivatives 4.0 International License (CCBY-NC-ND4.0).
