Enhancing Grade 11 Students’ Conceptual Understanding of Geological Processes and Earth’s Internal Heat through the Design Thinking Process

This study investigated the effectiveness of the Design Thinking Process (DTP) in enhancing Grade 11 students' conceptual understanding of geological processes and Earth's internal heat and explored their experiences during its implementation. An explanatory sequential mixed-methods design was employed with 48 Grade 11 General Academic Strand students from two intact sections. Twenty-four students received instruction through DTP, while 24 students were taught using a traditional lecture-based approach. Quantitative data were collected using a validated 30-item conceptual understanding test administered before and after the intervention. Qualitative data were obtained through semi-structured interviews with 12 students from the experimental group. Results showed that both groups improved following instruction, but the DTP group obtained a higher mean gain (7.50) than the control group (3.58). The difference in learning gains was statistically significant, t = 4.20, p < .001. The DTP group also achieved a significantly higher posttest mean (23.54) than the control group (19.46), t = −3.409, p = .001. The qualitative findings generated five themes: (1) adjusting emotionally to learning geological processes through a student-centered approach; (2) reconstructing the meaning of learning science through actively constructing knowledge; (3) deepening conceptual understanding of Earth's internal heat and geological processes through experiential engagement; (4) developing collaborative and scientific problem-solving competence through negotiating and teamwork; and (5) experiencing contextual challenges while recognizing the long-term scientific value of DTP. These findings indicate that DTP supported not only conceptual learning but also active knowledge construction, learner independence, experiential engagement, collaboration, and problem-solving. However, students also experienced challenges related to emotional adjustment, time management, workload, and group participation. The study concludes that DTP is a promising student-centered approach for teaching complex Earth Science concepts when supported by adequate time allocation, teacher scaffolding, clear expectations, and structured collaborative activities.

Design Thinking Process, Earth Science, experiential learning, geological processes

1. Acido, J. V., & Caballes, D. G. (2024). Assessing educational progress: A comparative analysis of PISA results (2018 vs. 2022) and HDI correlation in the Philippines. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 21(1), 462-474. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Aflatoony, L., Wakkary, R. L., & Neustaedter, C. (2018). Becoming a design thinker: Assessing the learning process of students in a secondary level design thinking course. The International Journal of Art & Design Education, 37(3), 438–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12139 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Ballen, C. J., Wieman, C., Salehi, S., Searle, J. B., & Zamudio, K. R. (2017). Enhancing diversity in undergraduate science: Self-efficacy drives performance gains with active learning. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(4), ar56. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Boller-Aying, S., & Villegas-Mendaño, R. (2024). Students’ performance on the horizontal and vertical components of projectile motion using project-based learning. Ignatian International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research, 2(4), 1689–1704. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Cooper, G., & Berry, A. (2020). Demographic predictors of senior secondary participation in biology, physics, chemistry and earth/space sciences: students’ access to cultural, social and science capital. International Journal of Science Education, 42(1), 151-166. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Fitriyah, I. J., Saputro, S., & Sajidan. (2025, November). Effectiveness of the Problem-Based Learning Model with a Design Thinking Approach in Improving Students' Creative Thinking Skills; A Systematic Review. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 3148, No. 1, p. 012017). IOP Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Henriksen, D., Richardson, C., & Mehta, R. (2017). Design thinking: A creative approach to educational problems of practice. Thinking skills and Creativity, 26, 140-153. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Hilvano, C. A., PhD, R. V. M. (2026). Mobile-Assisted Experimentation Using the Phyphox Application: Effects on Grade 8 Students’ Conceptual Understanding of Pendulum Motion. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 10(26), https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2026.1026EDU0410. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Hoa, H. Q. (2025). Integrating design thinking into STEM education: Enhancing problem-solving skills of high school students. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 21(4), em2611. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Interaction Design Foundation, Dam, R. F., & Siang, T. Y. (2021, December). What is design thinking and why is it so popular?. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Jaeger, A. J., Shipley, T. F., & Reynolds, S. J. (2017). The roles of working memory and cognitive load in geoscience learning. Journal of Geoscience Education, 65(4), 506-518. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 270-289). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-hall. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Ladachart, L., Radchanet, V., & Phothong, W. (2022). Design-thinking mindsets facilitating students’ learning of scientific concepts in design-based activities. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 19(1), 1-16. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Landicho, C. J. (2021). Changes, challenges, and opportunities in teaching senior high school earth science amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 6(1), 55-57. Moon, A. (2022). Creating Prototypes: Products of the Design Thinking Process (Master's thesis, SUNY Polytechnic Institute). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Mäkitalo, Å. (2016). On the notion of agency in studies of interaction and learning. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 10, 64-67. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Maneewan, C., Hemtasin, C., & Thongsuk, T. (2024). Design Thinking for Innovative Learning: Crafting a Collaborative Activity Package to Enhance Teamwork Skills in Science Education. International Journal on Social and Education Sciences, 6(4), 550-576. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Novawan, A., Ismailia, T., Zuhro, C., Utami, L. D., Pratama, M. R., Karimah, K., & Haq, R. N. (2024). Design thinking approach to powerful material development in educational contexts: From theory to practice. International Journal of Studies in Social Sciences and Humanities, 1(2), 125-145. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Pugh, K. J., Bergstrom, C. M., Heddy, B. C., & Krob, K. E. (2017). Supporting deep engagement: The teaching for transformative experiences in science (TTES) model. The Journal of Experimental Education, 85(4), 629-657. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Zhang, F., Markopoulos, P., & Bekker, T. (2020). Children’s emotions in design-based learning: A systematic review. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(4), 459-481. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Combined and Isolated Effect of SAQ Training and Resistance Training on Agility and Flexibility among Badminton Players
• Importance of Ashtanga Yoga in Physical Education and Mental Health
• Navigating the Path of Exceptional Parenting: An Exploration of Experiences among Parents of Para-Athletes
• Effects of a 12-Week Football Intervention on Mental Health and Psychological Resilience in Secondary School Students
• Academic Achievement, Enthusiasm and Attitude of High School Students Regarding Quizizz as an Educational Gamification Tool for Physics