Design thinking for fostering 21st-century skills among Thai public health undergraduates: a design-based research approach
Keywords:
Design-based research, Design thinking, Curriculum redesign, Active learning, 21st-century skills, Health professions educationAbstract
Background: Design Thinking (DT) has gained increasing recognition in health professions education for its ability to foster key 21st-century skills such as creativity, critical thinking, collaboration, and adaptability. Objective: This study employed a Design-Based Research approach to develop and evaluate a Design Thinking (DT)-driven pedagogical innovation aimed at streamlining curriculum delivery while fostering 21st-century skills among Thai undergraduate public health students. Methods: The intervention was co-constructed with students, faculty, alumni, employers, and community stakeholders (December 2022–May 2023) and assessed using a one-group pretest-posttest design with paired-samples t-tests. A 15-week integrated prototype, implemented among 53 third-year students, restructured conventional lecture-based instruction into a hybrid ecosystem comprising interactive sessions, integrated modules, an autonomous Self-study Café, and field-based projects. Data were collected through self-administered questionnaires and after-action reviews (AARs) with students and instructors. The innovation reduced formal classroom contact hours by 21% without an apparent reduction in learning depth, based on qualitative feedback. Results: Findings revealed significant improvements across all six dimensions of 21st-century skills (p < 0.001, d = 0.91–1.93). Students’ perceptions of teaching-learning management were significantly more positive under the integrated model than the traditional model (p < 0.001), with high overall satisfaction toward the prototype (mean 4.38–4.51). AARs findings indicated that reducing lecture-intensive content facilitated deeper engagement and greater student agency, while also reducing academic anxiety and appearing to strengthen professional identity through authentic problem-solving. Conclusion: Findings align with Cognitive Load Theory, suggesting that reduced extraneous cognitive load facilitated higher-order learning. This DT-driven model constitutes a potentially viable framework for educational reform in health professions education, bridging theoretical knowledge and public health practice. Multi-site, longitudinal research is recommended to examine the model’s scalability and sustained impact.
References
Partnership for 21st Century Learning. Framework for 21st century learning definitions [Internet]. Battelle for Kids; 2019 [cited 2023 Jan 3]. Available from: https://www. battelleforkids.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/P21_Framework_DefinitionsBFK.pdf.
World Economic Forum. The future of jobs report 2023 [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Apr 30]. Available from: https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-future-of-jobs-report-2023/.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The future of education and skills: Education 2030 [Internet]. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2018 [cited 2023 Jan 20]. DOI:10.1787/54ac7020-en
Swallow D, Tomalin B. Design thinking in education: a paradigm shift in language learning. Train Lang Cult. 2024;8(4):86-94.
Stanford University Institute of Design. An introduction to design thinking: process guide [Internet]. Stanford: Hasso Plattner Institute of Design; 2010 [cited 2023 Dec 30]. Available from: https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/an-introduction-to-design-thinking-process-guide/.
Kolb DA. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall; 1984.
McLaughlin JE, Chen E, Lake D, Guo W, Skywark ER, Chernik A, et al. Design thinking teaching and learning in higher education: experiences across four universities. PLoS One. 2022;17(3):e0265902. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0265902
Guaman-Quintanilla S, Everaert P, Chiluiza K, Valcke M. Impact of design thinking in higher education: a multi-actor perspective on problem solving and creativity. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 2023;33:217–40. DOI:10.1007/s10798-021-09727-z
Alvarado LF. Design thinking as an active teaching methodology in higher education: a systematic review. Front Educ (Lausanne). 2025;10:1462938. DOI:10.3389/feduc.2025.1462938
Chuenjitwongsa S, Amir LR, Jessani A, Samaranayake LP, Osathanon T. Integrating design thinking into dental education. Front Oral Health. 2025;6:1547335. DOI:10.3389/froh.2025.1547335
Mustika R, Greviana N, Kusumoningrum DA, Pinasthika A. Redesigning a faculty development program for clinical teachers in Indonesia: a before-and-after study. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2024;21:14. DOI:10.3352/jeehp.2024.21.14
Mahidol University, Amnatcharoen Campus, Office of Student Affairs. Annual report on student engagement in 21st-century skills activities, academic years 2019–2023. (In Thai).
McKenney S, Reeves TC. Conducting educational design research. 2nd ed. London: Routledge; 2018.
Panthumas S, Zaw K, Kittipichai W. Validation of the 21st century skills assessment scale for public health students in Thailand: a methodological study. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2024;21:37. DOI:10.3352/jeehp.2024.21.37
Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol. Bull. 1992;112(1):155–59. DOI:10.1037/0033-2909. 112.1.155
Koch R. The 80/20 principle: the secret of achieving more with less. London: Doubleday; 1998.
Abookire S, Plover C, Frasso R, Ku B. Health design thinking: an innovative approach in public health to defining problems and finding solutions. Front Public Health. 2020;8:459. DOI:10.3389/fpubh.2020.00459
Kyriakopoulou N. Reconceptualizing momentary engagement through the lens of conceptual change learning. Frontline Learn Research. 2025;13(2):122–30. DOI:10.14786/flr.v13i2.1587.
Sweller J. Cognitive load theory and individual differences. Learn Individ Differ. 2024;110:102423. DOI:10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102423
Mayer RE, Fiorella L, editors. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2022. DOI:10.1017/9781108894333
Inouye K, Lee S, Oldac YI. A systematic review of student agency in international higher education. High Educ. 2023;86(4):891–911. DOI:10.1007/s10734-022-00952-3
Hajduk I, Nordberg A, Rainio E. Design thinking in healthcare education. In: Pakarinen A, Lemström T, Rainio E, Siirala E, editors. Design thinking in healthcare: from problem to innovative solutions. Cham: Springer; 2023. p.37–62. DOI:10.1007/978-3-031-24510-7_4
Kirschner PA, Hendrick C. How learning happens: seminal works in educational psychology and what they mean in practice. 2nd ed. London: Routledge; 2024. DOI:10.4324/9781003395713
Wang CC. Using design thinking for interdisciplinary curriculum design and teaching: a case study in higher education. Soc Sci Commun. 2024;11:13.
DOI:10.1057/s41599-024-02813-z
Tambunan EH. Theory-practice gap during clinical learning: a descriptive qualitative study of nursing students’ experiences and perceptions. J Caring Sci. 2024;13(2):74–81. DOI:10.34172/jcs.33251
Lepre B, Palermo C, Mansfield KJ, Beck EJ. Stakeholder engagement in competency framework development in health professions: a systematic review. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021;8:759848. DOI:10.3389/fmed.2021.759848
Mani ZA. Transitioning to competency-based education in nursing: a scoping review of curriculum review and revision strategies. BMC Nurs. 2025;24:1111.
DOI:10.1186/s12912-025-03319-y
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Creative Commons License CC-BY-ND