Unlocking students’ creative potential in designing technological-enriched design solutions

Figures & data

Figure 1. The integrated STEM-based creative problem-solving model (adapted from Huang et al., 2022).

Figure 2. The flow of the integrated STEM program.

Figure 3. Timeline of the program.

Figure 4. Students learning app development skills via Zoom videoconferencing.

Figure 5. Students learning social-technical products via Zoom videoconferencing.

Table 1. Themes and sub-themes of the technological-enriched design solutions.

Themes	Sub-themes	Examples of design solutions
Safety	Home safety	Visually Impaired Annunciator, Smart Door, Safety Smart Carpet, Cooking Flame Assistant
	Outdoor safety	Smart Crutch, Electric Guide Dog, Walk Out Safety App, Multifunction Wheelchair
	Food safety	Visual Impaired Drink
	Medicine safety & health	Health Checker App, Medicine Giver, Dan’s Virus Detector and Virus Cleaner for iPhone
Convenience & assistance	Convenience for seeing general information	Visually Impaired Glasses, Smart Glasses, Sense and Read Inductor
	Convenience for shopping	Price and Product Recognizer, Online Shopping Device
	Convenience for transportation	Easy Walk, AI Voice Guideline Earphone, Bus Reminder,
	Convenience for other purposes	Smart Hearing Aid, Social Distance Detector, Visually Impaired Auxiliary Watch
Recreation	Recreation for reading	Smart Pen
	Recreation for sports	Elderly Exercises APP

Figure 6. Distribution of the quality of the solution proposals.

Table 2. Comparison of proposal scores on each dimension for the higher-, medium-, and lower-performing groups.

Dimension	Performance level	n	Mean rank	Kruskal–Wallis test result
Defining design goals	Higher	10	22.50	χ^2(2) = 13.624, p = 0.001
	Medium	12	17.33	Higher > Lower, p = 0.001
	Lower	10	9.50
Reasoning	Higher	10	21	χ^2(2) = 9.377, p = 0.009
	Medium	12	18.17	Higher > Lower, p = 0.01
	Lower	10	10
Technical knowledge and skills	Higher	10	23.85	χ^2(2) = 16.904, p < .001
	Medium	12	17.54	Higher > Lower, p < .001
	Lower	10	7.90	Medium > Lower, p = 0.03
Originality	Higher	10	23	χ^2(2) = 11.22, p = 0.004
	Medium	12	13.75	Higher > Lower, p = 0.01
	Lower	10	13.3	Higher > Medium, p = 0.011

Table

Dimension	Sub-dimension	Score range	Criteria
Defining design goal	Goals (i.e. the effects that the product can achieve)	0–3	Level 3: Excellent. Very specific, accurate, and reasonable descriptions. Issues that can be addressed by the product are clearly listed. Level 2: Good. Specific, accurate, and reasonable descriptions. Issues that can be addressed by the product are listed. Minor mistakes. Level 1: Fair. Vague and unreasonable descriptions. Issues that can be addressed by the product are barely listed. Major mistakes. Level 0: No coverage.
Reasoning	Needs of society (i.e. the problem that has been identified)	0–3	Level 3: Excellent. Very specific, accurate, and reasonable descriptions. Displays empathy and a precise understanding of users’ difficulties. Reliable and relevant information cited to support the main points. Level 2: Good. Specific, accurate, and reasonable descriptions. Displays empathy and an understanding of users’ difficulties. Minor mistakes. Level 1: Fair. Vague and unreasonable descriptions. Displays a low level of empathy and understanding of users’ difficulties. Major mistakes. Level 0: No coverage.
	Product impact (i.e. potential impacts on the community or industry)	0–3	Level 3: Excellent. Very specific, accurate, and reasonable analysis of the potential influence on the community or industry. Level 2: Good. Specific, accurate, and reasonable analysis of the potential influence on the community or industry. Minor mistakes. Level 1: Fair. Vague analysis of the potential influence on the community or industry. Major mistakes. Level 0: No coverage.
Technical knowledge and skills	Technical features (i.e. the main functions and how they work)	0–6	Level 3: Excellent. Very specific, accurate, and reasonable descriptions of the product features and functions (2 or more items). Brief description of how each function works. Level 2: Good. Specific, accurate, and reasonable descriptions of the product features and functions (1 or more items). Brief description of how each function works. Minor mistakes. Level 1: Fair. Vague description of the product features and functions. Failure to describe how each function works. Major mistakes. Level 0: No coverage.
	Making process (i.e. materials, devices, and process for making the product)	0–6	Level 3: Excellent. Very specific, accurate, and reasonable descriptions of the materials required for making the product. Sufficient evidence for the feasibility of developing the product. Level 2: Good. Specific, accurate, and reasonable descriptions of the materials required for making the product. Partial evidence for the feasibility of developing the product. Minor mistakes. Level 1: Fair. Vague description of the materials required for making the product. Minimal evidence for the feasibility of developing the product. Major mistakes. Level 0: No coverage.
	Suggestions for future products	0–3	Level 3: Excellent. Very specific, accurate, and reasonable suggestions for future product improvements (2 or more items). Level 2: Good. Specific, accurate, and reasonable suggestions for future product improvements (1 or more items). Minor mistakes. Level 1: Fair. Vague suggestions for future product improvements. Major mistakes. Level 0: No coverage.
Originality	Uniqueness (i.e. the uniqueness of the product, or the advantages of the product over similar products)	0–6	Level 3: Excellent. Very specific, accurate, and reasonable descriptions of the product’s unique advantages (2 or more items) over others on the market. Level 2: Good. Specific, accurate, and reasonable descriptions of the product’s unique advantages (1 or more items) over others on the market. Minor mistakes. Level 1: Fair. Vague description of the product’s unique advantages over others on the market. Major mistakes. Level 0: No coverage.

Huang, B., Jong, M. S. Y., King, R. B., Chai, C. S., & Jiang, M. Y. C. (2022). Promoting secondary students’ twenty-first century skills and STEM career interests through a crossover program of STEM and community service education. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.903252

 Google Scholar