Phase-Specific Perceived Difficulty and AI Scaffolding Demand in Design Thinking Final Year Projects: A Mixed-Methods Study of Diploma Electrical Engineering TVET Students at Politeknik Port Dickson

The integration of Design Thinking (DT) into Final Year Projects (FYP) represents a promising pedagogical strategy within Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) engineering programmes. However, diploma-level students may encounter phase-specific execution challenges when navigating the five DT phases of Empathise, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test, particularly within the ill-structured demands of FYP contexts. Concurrently, the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in educational settings raises important questions about which phases students identify as most challenging and what technology supports, they prefer. This study examined phase-specific perceived difficulty across all five DT phases and its association with preferred technology support features among Diploma Electrical Engineering students at Politeknik Port Dickson, Malaysia. A cross-sectional mixed-methods survey design was employed involving 139 students enrolled in FYP Part 1. Quantitative data were collected via Likert-scale items and multi-select instruments measuring DT satisfaction, phase-level perceived difficulty, and technology support preferences. Open-ended responses provided qualitative elaboration. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, Cochran's Q test, chi-square tests of independence, and multivariable binary logistic regression. Findings revealed high overall satisfaction with DT implementation (M = 4.243), with Ideation (48.9%) and Prototyping (43.2%) most frequently identified as phase bottlenecks. AI Assistance (49.6%) and Mobile Application (46.0%) emerged as the most preferred support features. Logistic regression indicated that students who found Ideation and Prototyping challenging were approximately 2.5 times more likely to prefer AI Assistance, even after controlling for co-occurring phase difficulties. Mobile Application preference, by contrast, was broadly consistent across all phase-challenge profiles. These findings suggest that AI-enabled scaffolding holds particular promise for supporting students during cognitively demanding DT phases, while mobile platforms may serve as a universal delivery mechanism across all phases. Phase-level findings were further corroborated by convergent qualitative themes including idea generation difficulty, cognitive overload, and prototype execution challenges. Implications for TVET educators and DT support tool designers are discussed.

Design Thinking; AI-Enhanced Scaffolding; TVET Engineering Education

1. Al Mulhim, E. N., & Zaky, Y. A. M. (2022). The influence of e-scaffolding sources in a mobile learning environment on students’ design skills and the technology fatigue associated with a 3D virtual environment. Electronics, 11(14), 2172. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11142172 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bacca, J., Baldiris, S., Fabregat, R., Kinshuk, & Graf, S. (2015). Mobile augmented reality in vocational education and training. Procedia Computer Science, 75, 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.203 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Belland, B. R., Walker, A. E., Kim, N. J., & Lefler, M. (2017). Synthesizing results from empirical research on computer-based scaffolding in STEM education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 309–344. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316670999 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Chen, G.-D., Chang, C.-K., & Wang, C.-Y. (2008). Ubiquitous learning website: Scaffold learners by mobile devices with information-aware techniques. Computers & Education, 50(1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.03.004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Cramer-Petersen, C. L. (2019). Reasoning patterns in team-based idea generation (Doctoral dissertation, Technical University of Denmark). DTU Orbit. https://orbit.dtu.dk/files/184232507/Reasoning_patterns_in_team_based_idea_generation_PhD_thesis_clcp.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Berg. https://www.bloomsbury.com/in/design-thinking-9781847888464/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Daly, S. R., Yılmaz, S., Christian, J. L., Seifert, C. M., & Gonzalez, R. (2012). Design heuristics in engineering concept generation. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 601–629. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb01121.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Deng, Y., & Liu, W. (2023). Board 72: How to develop engineering students as design thinkers: A systematic review of design thinking implementations in engineering education. ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--44462 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Dorst, K. (2011). The core of “design thinking” and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Dringenberg, E., & Wertz, R. E. H. (2016). How do first-year engineering students experience ambiguity in engineering design problems: The development of a self-report instrument (Conference paper). https://doi.org/10.18260/p.25474 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6 Pt 2), 2134–2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX: Results of empirical and theoretical research. In P. A. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139–183). North-Holland. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Jansson, D. G., & Smith, S. M. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies, 12(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(91)90003-F [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., … Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Kim, K., Zaib, S., Uzma, S., Karim, R. M., & Tufail, M. (2024). Exploring designers’ cognitive abilities in the concept product design phase. Proceedings of the Design Society, 4, 1135–1146. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2024.116 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Kleinsmann, M., & Valkenburg, R. (2008). Barriers and enablers for creating shared understanding in co-design projects. Design Studies, 29(4), 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2008.03.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Lake, D., Flannery, K. A., & Kearns, M. (2021). Mixed-methods examination of design thinking practices. Innovative Higher Education, 46(3), 337–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-020-09539-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Leong, W. Y. (2025). Artificial intelligence, automation, and technical and vocational education and training: Transforming vocational training in the digital era. Engineering Proceedings, 103(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025103009 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Mogavi, R. H., Deng, C., Li, J., Wang, Y., & Hui, P. (2024). ChatGPT in education: A qualitative study on mainstream student perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 2, 100027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2023.100027 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Nolte, H., & McComb, C. (2021). The cognitive experience of engineering design. Design Science, 7, e4. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2020.32 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics education: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429–434. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00884.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Reyes, C. E. G., Peláez-Sánchez, I. C., & Glasserman-Morales, L. D. (2024). Digital environments of education 4.0. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2024(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.833 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study