Validating a Design Thinking Learning Model for Developing IoT Projects through Expert Evaluation

The Internet of Things (IoT) connects sensors, embedded devices, and digital platforms to enable intelligent interactions between people and their environments. Engaging students in IoT projects exposes them to authentic challenges where programming, data analysis, and system design converge. However, many educators struggle to guide learners from design to functional prototypes. The absence of validated pedagogical models that link creative ideation with technical implementation continues to limit the effectiveness of IoT education. This study proposes an initial validated learning model for developing Internet of Things (IoT) projects through a Design Thinking (DT) approach. The model integrates DT principles with the Initiator-Before-In-After (IBIA) teaching sequence and the Flex blended-learning structure. Expert judgment was used to validate the class activities for both lecturers and students based on the proposed conceptual model for developing IoT Projects through DT approach. Six experts specialising in DT, learning innovation, and IoT education evaluated the model using the Content Validity Index (CVI) and the Content Validity Ratio (CVR), complemented by qualitative feedback. Quantitative analysis determined the model’s content validity, while thematic interpretation of expert comments informed refinements to strengthen instructional relevance.

Design Thinking, Internet of Things (IoT), Expert evaluation

1. Akiyama, Y., & Cunningham, D. J. (2018). Synthesizing the Practice of SCMC-based Telecollaboration [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. A Scoping Review. CALICO Journal, 35(1), 49-76. https://www.jstor.org/stable/90016521 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational researcher, 41(1), 16-25. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Antoninis, M., Alcott, B., Al Hadheri, S., April, D., Fouad Barakat, B., Barrios Rivera, M., Baskakova, Y., Barry, M., Bekkouche, Y., & Caro Vasquez, D. (2023). Global Education Monitoring Report 2023: Technology in education: A tool on whose terms? [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Atlam, H., & Wills, G. (2018). Technical aspects of blockchain and IoT. In (pp. 1-39). https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adcom.2018.10.006 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Baran, E., & AlZoubi, D. (2024). Design thinking in teacher education: Morphing preservice teachers’ mindsets and conceptualizations. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 56(5), 496-514. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Boelens, R., De Wever, B., & Voet, M. (2017). Four key challenges to the design of blended learning: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 22, 1-18. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.06.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2015). Design thinking for social innovation. Annual Review of Policy Design, 3(1), 1-10. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Bruner, J. S. (1997). The culture of education. In The culture of education. Harvard university press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Choi, H., Kim, H., & Kim, N. (2024). Enhancing creativity through a problem-based design thinking project in higher education. Cogent Education, 11. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2378272 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Corpuz, J., Cruz, K. J. S. D., Palomar, J. B., Tamayo, J., Bongao, H. L. C., Enojas, M. J. B., & Morgado, J. E. (2025). Household electric monitoring IoT system. Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 40(1), 85-92. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Di Battista, A., Grayling, S., Hasselaar, E., Leopold, T., Li, R., Rayner, M., & Zahidi, S. (2023). Future of jobs report 2023. World Economic Forum, [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Elangovan, N., & Sundaravel, E. (2021). Method of preparing a document for survey instrument validation by experts. MethodsX, 8, 101326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2021.101326 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Garcia Moreno, H. M. (2024). An Exploratory Case Study of Students’ Blended Learning Experiences During Post Emergency Learning. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems. The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs, 1, 3-21. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Guerra-Manzanares, A., & Bahsi, H. (2023). On the application of active learning for efficient and effective IoT botnet detection. Future Generation Computer Systems, 141, 40-53. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2022.10.024 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Henriksen, D., Creely, E., Henderson, M., & Mishra, P. (2021). Creativity and technology in teaching and learning: a literature review of the uneasy space of implementation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(4), 2091-2108. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2014). Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve schools. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Iqbal, M. H. (2023). A Review on the Role of IoT in Modern Electrical Engineering Education. Journal of Engineering and Computational Intelligence Review, 1(1), 14-22. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Jamaluddin, F., Jamaluddin, A. H., Jamaluddin, F., & Jamaluddin, F. (2025). Malaysia's AI-Driven Education Landscape: Policies, Applications, and Comparative Insights for a Digital Future. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.21858. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Jiang, C., & Pang, Y. (2023). Enhancing design thinking in engineering students with project‐based learning. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 31(4), 814-830. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Juan, W., Mukhtar, M. I., & Zhongli, J. (2025). Enhancing Entrepreneurship Education In TVET: A Validated Evaluation Scale for Higher Vocational Institution. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 9(2), 4352-4367. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Kolb, D. (2015). Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of Learning and Development Second Edition. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Laverty, M., & Littel, C. (2022). 4.3 Design Thinking. NSCC Foundations of Entrepreneurship. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel psychology, 28(4). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Liebkemann, S. L. (2021). The Impact of an Interprofessional Web-Based Unfolding Case Study on the Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes of Students via Online, Asynchronous Modules The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill]. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing research, 35(6), 382-386. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Malaysia Digital Education Policy (2023). https://www.moe.gov.my/storage/files/shares/ Dasar/Dasar%20Pendidikan%20Digital/Digital%20Education%20Policy.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. McCormack, C. M. (2021). Information architecture and cognitive user experience in distributed, asynchronous learning: a case design of a modularized online systems engineering learning environment Purdue University]. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. (2018). Conducting educational design research. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Müller, V. C. (2020). Ethics of artificial intelligence and robotics. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Nordin, N. S., Junaidi, J., & Hanid, M. F. A. (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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. OECD. (2023). OECD Skills Outlook 2023: Skills for a Resilient Green and Digital Transition. O. Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Panke, S. (2019). Design Thinking in Education: Perspectives, Opportunities and Challenges. Open Education Studies, 1, 281-306. https://doi.org/10.1515/edu-2019-0022 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Piaget, J., & Duckworth, E. (1970). Genetic epistemology. American Behavioral Scientist, 13(3), 459-480. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in nursing & health, 29(5), 489-497. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Pueyo‐Garrigues, M., Pardavila‐Belio, M. I., Whitehead, D., Esandi, N., Canga‐Armayor, A., Elosua, P., & Canga‐Armayor, N. (2021). Nurses’ knowledge, skills and personal attributes for competent health education practice: An instrument development and psychometric validation study. Journal of advanced nursing, 77(2), 715-728. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Purba, L., & Zunidar, Z. (2025). Enhancing Student Creativity through Project-Based Learning in Science Education. Electronic Journal of Education, Social Economics and Technology, 6, 862. https://doi.org/10.33122/ejeset.v6i2.862 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. 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]

40. Reigeluth, C. M. (2013). Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, Volume II. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Rodriguez‐Sanchez, C., Orellana, R., Fernandez Barbosa, P. R., Borromeo, S., & Vaquero, J. (2024). Insights 4.0: Transformative learning in industrial engineering through problem‐based learning and project‐based learning. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 32(4), e22736. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Sukumaran, S. (2018). Flex-learning-Online or face to face–Learners’ freedom of choice. Global Bioethics Enquiry, 28. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Trishaank, K., Praveen Kumar, K., & Ram Mohan Rao, P. (2024). Integrating Computational Thinking & Design Thinking in Curriculum Development. International Conference on Work Integrated Learning. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. UNESCO. (2023). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Vuorikari, R., Kluzer, S., & Punie, Y. (2022). DigComp 2.2: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens-With new examples of knowledge, skills and attitudes. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (Vol. 86). Harvard university press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Wilson, J. P., & Beard, C. (2013). Experiential learning: A handbook for education, training and coaching. Kogan Page Publishers. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Wrigley, C., & Straker, K. (2015). Design Thinking pedagogy: the Educational Design Ladder. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1108214 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Zainal, S., Yusoff, R. C. M., Abas, H., Yaacub, S., & Zainuddin, N. M. (2021). Review of design thinking approach in learning IoT programming. International Journal of Advanced Research in Future Ready Learning and Education, 24(1), 28-38. [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