The Role of Digital Tools in Enhancing Innovation Competencies in High School Student Projects
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background and Aim: Innovation competencies are increasingly recognized as essential for 21st-century learners. However, conventional classroom practices, particularly in secondary science education, often provide limited technological support for systematic innovation-oriented learning. This study aimed to examine the potential of integrating digital tools within Project-Based Learning (PBL) and the Engineering Design Process (EDP) to support students’ innovation competencies.
Materials and Methods: The study employed a quasi-experimental pre-test/post-test control group design. The sample consisted of 60 upper secondary students from Sakolrajwittayanukul School, divided into an experimental group (n = 30) and a control group (n = 30). The experimental group utilized a range of digital tools—Miro, Padlet, Tinkercad, Canva, VR/AR applications, Google Forms, and IoT sensors—throughout a six-week science project, whereas the control group conducted the project using traditional methods. Research instruments included a 30-item Innovation Competency Questionnaire (ICQ) covering six domains (Cronbach’s α = .89), a five-dimension project assessment rubric, and semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-tests, ANOVA, and Cohen’s d, while qualitative data were examined through thematic analysis.
Results: Findings revealed that the experimental group demonstrated statistically significant improvements across all innovation competency domains (p < .001), with very large effect sizes (d > 2.00). The overall mean score increased from 3.19 to 4.10 (d = 2.73), whereas the control group showed only a marginal increase from 3.16 to 3.30. The most pronounced gains were observed in digital literacy (d = 2.64), followed by adaptability and lifelong learning (d = 2.41), and design thinking (d = 2.36). Qualitative analysis further indicated substantially higher levels of peer interaction and iterative prototype refinement in the experimental group compared to the control group. Additional themes included enhanced conceptual understanding through VR/AR-supported activities, increased learning motivation, and strengthened confidence in presenting project outcomes.
Conclusion: The findings provide evidence that integrating digital tools within problem-based learning (PBL) enhanced by the engineering design process (EDP) has substantial potential to support the development of students’ innovation competencies. These results align with constructivist learning principles and previous research highlighting technology-supported collaborative learning. Despite its strengths, the study is limited by its short intervention period, varying access to digital technologies, and a relatively small sample size. Nevertheless, the findings suggest that the integration of digital tools may contribute meaningfully to the transformation of science project-based learning by fostering creativity, problem-solving abilities, and digital fluency among upper secondary school students.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright on any article in the Journal of Education and Learning Reviews is retained by the author(s) under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permission to use text, content, images, etc. of publication. Any user to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose. But do not use it for commercial use or with the intent to benefit any business.
References
Andrade, H. G. (2005). Teaching with rubrics: The good, the bad, and the ugly. College Teaching, 53(1), 27–31. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.53.1.27-31
Becker, K., & Park, K. (2023). Engineering design thinking in science education: A systematic review. International Journal of Educational Research, 118, 102156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2023.102156
Bower, M., Dalgarno, B., Kennedy, G. E., Lee, M. J., & Kenney, J. (2020). Design and implementation factors in blended synchronous learning environments: Outcomes from a cross-case analysis. Computers & Education, 86, 103859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103859
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brown, T. (2021). Design thinking and iterative prototyping in education: Fostering innovation through repeated refinement. Creativity Research Journal, 33(2), 156–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2021.1886585
Chen, L., Wang, Y., & Zhang, H. (2024). Online collaborative tools and teamwork skills development: An empirical study. Computers & Education, 212, 104985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.104985
Clark, R. E., & Sugrue, B. M. (1988). Research on instructional media, 1978–1988. In D. Ely (Ed.), Educational media and technology yearbook (pp. 19–36). Libraries Unlimited.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203720967
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071878729
Cropley, A. (2020). Creativity in education and learning: A guide for teachers and educators. Creativity Research Journal, 32(4), 385–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2020.1843606
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2020). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. Basic Books.
Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2023). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 112(1), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-023-09821-5
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551
Garzón, J., & Acevedo, J. (2023). Effects of 3D modeling tools on spatial skills and creativity in STEM education. Computers & Education, 201, 104876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104876
Guo, P., Saab, N., Post, L. S., & Admiraal, W. (2020). A review of project-based learning in higher education: Student outcomes and measures. International Journal of Educational Research, 102, 101586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101586
Hatlevik, O. E., & Christophersen, K. A. (2023). Digital competence at the beginning of upper secondary school: Identifying profiles and potential consequences. Computers in Human Behavior, 147, 107891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107891
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2022). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building in problem-based learning. Instructional Science, 50(6), 823–845. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-022-09593-8
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. MIT Press.
Hwang, G. J., & Chien, S. Y. (2022). Definition, framework and research issues of smart learning environments: A context-aware ubiquitous learning perspective. Educational Technology & Society, 25(1), 1–14.
Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2023). Productive use of learning resources in an online problem-based learning environment. Computers & Education, 203, 104921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104921
Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2007.05.002
Kim, S. (2024). Engineering design process in science classrooms: Fostering innovation and creativity. International Journal of Science Education, 46(5), 789–805. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2024.2315678
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.
Krajcik, J., & Shin, N. (2022). Project-based learning in science education: Theoretical foundations and implementation strategies. Science & Education, 31(4), 921–945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00296-9
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Vermeulen, M. (2022). Social aspects of CSCL environments: A research framework. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(5), 1639–1660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10156-w
Lee, H., & Lim, K. Y. (2024). The effect of data literacy instruction on students' data interpretation and argumentation in science. Computers & Education, 215, 105089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105089
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Lucas, B., Spencer, E., & Claxton, G. (2023). Developing creative thinking in learners: A meta-analytic review. Creativity Research Journal, 35(3), 412–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2023.2245891
Martin, F., & Betrus, A. (2023). Digital tools for student engagement and feedback in online learning. TechTrends, 67(4), 623–635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-023-00891-4
Merchant, Z., Goetz, E. T., Cifuentes, L., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., & Davis, T. J. (2023). Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students' learning outcomes in K–12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 71(3), 789–812. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10267-2
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264305274-en
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2025). Future of education and skills 2030/2040. OECD. Retrieved [date], from https://www.oecd.org/education/future-of-education-and-skills-2030.htm
Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual (7th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003117452
Radianti, J., Majchrzak, T. A., Fromm, J., & Wohlgenannt, I. (2024). A systematic review of augmented reality applications in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, 100234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100234
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3–10.
Stahl, B. C., Schroeder, D., & Rodrigues, R. (2023). Ethics of artificial intelligence: Case studies and options for addressing ethical challenges. SpringerBriefs in Research and Innovation Governance. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17040-9
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
Thompson, J. (2024). Virtual reality in science education: Designing effective learning environments. Computers & Education, 189, 104634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.104634
Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A Comparative Analysis of International Frameworks for 21st Century Competences: Implications for National Curriculum Policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44, 299-321. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.668938
Vygotsky, LS (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education. 34 (1), 179-225.
Wilson, R., et al. (2024) Connecting Through Social Media: A Tool for Healthcare Professionals to Enhance Communication and Networking. International Journal of Health Services, 54, 76-89.
Winne, P. H. (2018). A metacognitive view of learning analytics. Journal of Learning Analytics, 5(2), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2018.52.2
Zhao, Y., Liu, X., & Wang, J. (2024). Digital design tools and creative confidence. Computers & Education, 218, 105067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105067
