Improving Digital Learning in Higher Education: Students’ Perspectives on Design Thinking Using Q-Methodology

SCHOOL	SDA		SMIT		SHRIM		SDG		FULL SAMPLE
DATA	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Gender
Male	48	32	15	9	8	5	3	2	74	49
Female	58	38	6	4	11	7	2	1	77	51
Other	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Year Level
1^st	57	38	19	13	17	11	3	2	96	64
2^nd	29	19	2	1	1	.6	1	.6	33	22
3^rd	12	8	0	0	1	.6	1	.6	14	9
4^th	8	5	0	0	0	0	0	0	8	5
Creativity Level
Designer	81	54	9	6	3	4	1	0	95	62
Non-Designer	25	17	13	8	16	11	2	3	56	38

[i] Note. Demographics reflect participants from all four schools of the college, with 106 from the School of Design and Arts (SDA), 21 from the School of Management and Information Technology (SMIT), 19 from the School of Hotel, Restaurant and Institution Management (SHRIM), and 5 from the School of Diplomacy and Governance (SDG).

Table 2

Demographics of the 40 participants drawn from the original pool of 151 individuals

SCHOOL	SDA		SMIT		SHRIM		SDG		FULL SAMPLE
DATA	n	%	n	%	n	%	N	%	n	%
Gender
Male	6	15	7	18	6	15	3	8	21	53
Female	7	18	5	13	5	13	2	5	19	48
Other	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Year Level
1^st	7	18	9	23	6	15	3	8	25	63
2^nd	3	8	2	5	5	13	1	3	11	28
3^rd	2	5	0	0	0	0	1	3	3	8
4^th	1	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	3
Creativity Level
Designer	7	18	7	18	4	10	2	5	20	50
Non-Designer	7	18	7	18	4	10	2	5	20	50

[i] Note. This table represents the demographics of the 40 participants representing all four schools of the college, selected as designers or non-designers.

Table 3

Demographics of P-set participants.

SCHOOL	SDA		SMIT		SHRIM		SDG		FULL SAMPLE
DATA	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Gender
Male	6	24	3	12	5	20	3	12	17	68
Female	3	12	2	8	2	8	1	4	8	32
Other	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Year Level
1^st	5	20	2	8	7	28	3	12	17	68
2^nd	3	12	1	4	0	0	1	4	5	20
3^rd	1	4	2	8	0	0	0	0	3	12
4^th	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Creativity Level
Designer	9	36	0	0	2	8	2	8	13	52
Non-Designer	0	0	5	20	5	20	2	8	12	48

[i] Note. This table represents the demographics of the P-sample representing all four schools of the college, with 9 participants from the School of Design and Arts (SDA), 5 from the School of Management and Information Technology (SMIT), 7 from the School of Hotel, Restaurant and Institution Management (SHRIM), and 4 from the School of Diplomacy and Governance (SDG).

Table 4

Truncated correlation matrix of the P-set.

PARTICIPANT	10602	00GWXBZ	4BBIVR	4OOY2	6 LWV9T7	70FP
10602	1
00GWXB7Z	-0.10	1
4BBIVR	0.10	0.18	1
4OOY2	0.56	0.08	0.42	1
6 LWV9T7	0.15	0.30	0.57	0.38	1
70FP	0.43	0.24	0.57	0.56	0.57	1

[i] Note. A correlation coefficient of at least 0.3266 is significant at p<0.05.

Table 5

Number of factors based on Humphrey’s Rule.

	FACTOR 1	FACTOR 2	FACTOR 3	FACTOR 4
% Explained Variance	26.32843	6.61605	3.99539	5.3450
Humphrey’s Rule	0.65957	0.27839	0.14961	.03519
Standard Error	0.05	0.05	0.05	.05

[i] Note. Values of Humphrey’s Rule that are less than 0.10 are excluded from the Q factor analysis.

Table 6

Factor loadings and cross-loadings.

#	PARTICIPANT	FACTOR 1	FACTOR 2	FACTOR 3
1	4BBIVR	0.48	0.09	0.36
2	DG1R	0.42	-0.04	0.31
3	K57K41	0.43	0.40	0.11
4	SSVSH	0.37	0.09	-0.20
5	10602	-0.03	0.74	0.27
6	4OOY2	0.41	0.55	0.33
7	IIL82M4 W	-0.14	0.74	0.41
8	OHMV	0.13	0.35	0.23
9	QFSUAK	0.16	0.64	0.53
10	UUMF	0.18	0.39	-0.03
11	00GWXB7Z	0.21	-0.18	0.40
12	6 LWV9T7	0.45	-0.04	0.66
13	70FP	0.35	0.44	0.59
14	9 L6DRA78	0.29	0.11	0.52
15	A90B	0.16	-0.15	0.58
16	C6HDYPO	0.07	0.13	0.51
17	H3VL	0.17	0.04	0.33
18	HXNQDS2	-0.04	0.24	0.43
19	QAHK	-0.06	0.44	0.48
20	QDHTKZN	0.12	0.14	0.39
21	8PKFHHV	0.36	0.28	0.42
22	B8G3Q4TO	-0.01	0.28	0.32
23	PJW25	0.10	0.55	0.56
24	S5EBI	-0.23	-0.11	0.18
25	VV45E	-0.13	0.09	0.30

[i] Note. The numbers in bold are those that belong to their corresponding factor.

Table 7

Z-Scores by Factors.

#	STATEMENT	FACTOR 1	FACTOR 2	FACTOR 3
1	Design thinking, if learned well, can be the most practical way of applying what is learned in each course because it immerses you in societal problems.	1.11069	1.15771	0.52253^†
2	Design Thinking makes Philosophy fun and challenging at the same time.	0.58080	–0.80903^†	0.64920
3	Design Thinking is overwhelming, pressuring, and challenging.	–0.42788	–0.63407	–1.52794^†
4	Applying such critical and creative thinking through design thinking can genuinely become a life-long learning experience.	0.41958^†	1.25955	1.16243
5	Design thinking uses critical and creative thinking to select an innovative project that can benefit most people by providing a real-life alternative or solution to a specific problem.	1.51487*	1.93068	1.28646
6	Philosophy made us become productive students, and I got a glimpse of the creative potential I never knew I had.	0.03059*	0.05690*	–0.31593*
7	Design Thinking made me think outside the box-that’s what Philosophy is all about.	1.00038	0.25295	0.54121*^†
8	Doing Design Thinking in Philosophy shows our innovative ideas.	–2.16911^†	0.21806	–0.01867
9	Design Thinking allows you to come up with fresh ideas.	0.23181*	0.26788*	0.05582*
10	Design thinking invites me to step out of my comfort zone.	–1.07725^†	0.47538	0.36119
11	Design thinking is a game changer as it makes learning effective.	–0.85033	0.17180^†	–0.72338
12	It made me realize that people are important when you make decisions – like what project to carry out – because they will be affected by it too.	0.66795	0.46252	1.93314
13	It is difficult to innovate when you do not know the problem of people who need help because design thinking should be about helping people.	1.30963	–1.10305^†	0.74672
14	Design Thinking motivated and engaged me to learn in PHILOSOPHY as it allowed me to express myself.	–1.03097^†	0.13219^†	0.63071^†
15	Design Thinking expresses my personal experiences, struggles, hobbies, and advocacy I am passionate about.	0.65024	–0.25850^†	1.02919
16	It was hard at first to find a project of your own that could benefit other people.	–0.01116*	–0.62635	–0.00128
17	Design Thinking offers a different twist to usual projects.	–0.05316	–0.42693*	–0.63412
18	Design Thinking is an effective online learning modality since the pandemic has challenged the way that teachers teach their lessons and the way students learn.	–0.04401	1.21914^†	0.37857
19	Since we are now living in a digital world, Design Thinking is something we need to adapt to global academic changes.	–1.40539^†	0.92753	0.46533
20	If higher education is to face demands for digital change, design thinking is a powerful tool for innovation in networked, global learning.	0.56937*	–0.04169	0.99592
21	It would be more helpful if design thinking is done face-to-face.	–1.13500	–1.33161	–0.29175^†
22	I cannot make sense of design thinking because I am not a techie; I’m lost in the digital world.	–1.95903*	–2.17652*	–2.14687*
23	Design thinking is not my cup of tea; it takes a while for me to become familiar with it.	–1.42825	–2.10454	–1.85498*
24	I need a little encouragement and motivation to translate my ideas into a design.	0.59309^†	–1.31669^†	–0.12965^†
25	Design thinking helps me to think like a designer who can deal with difficult situations and solve complex problems in life.	0.06319^†	1.12877^†	–1.32113^†
26	Design thinking, particularly prototyping, made us act like expert inventors.	–0.60937	0.09795^†	–1.11572
27	Design Thinking is really helpful and significant in solving a societal problem.	1.32393*	1.68221	0.96841
28	Design thinking allows you to revise your ideas many times to come up with a better solution.	0.47389	0.14749	–0.63371^†
29	Students are given a platform to introduce their creative skills to improve the lives of the people who would benefit from the project.	–0.26124^†	1.13809	1.56664
30	Design Thinking builds self-confidence because it gives me the courage to believe in my creativity and put the ideas into reality.	1.60575^†	0.44290	0.12061
31	Philosophy, while a difficult course, is made relevant and meaningful because of design thinking.	1.08700^†	–0.35450	–0.06361
32	Design thinking should also be applied in other courses aside from Philosophy.	–0.95865	0.03476	–0.42334*
33	Design thinking allowed the students’ voices to be heard and their innovative ideas to matter.	0.89434	0.09914^†	0.68427
34	Design thinking sums up all our learning in Philosophy class.	0.78915	0.37602	–0.35296^†
35	Designing a project in Philosophy is easy peasy.	–0.64396^†	–1.84635	–2.1227
36	I would love to enroll in another course that uses Design Thinking.	–0.85146*	–0.64980*	–0.4206*

[i] Note. The bolded Z-score represents the highest score per factor. Z-scores with this symbol * indicates the consensus statements, and those with this symbol ^† indicates the distinguishing statements per factor.

Table 8

Factors’ Valued Aspects of Design Thinking and Enhancement Needs

FACTORS	VALUED ASPECT OF DESIGN THINKING	ENHANCEMENT NEEDS
Factor 1: Groundswell Bootstrap Designers	They find DT to be a source of enjoyment and intellectual challenge, making their learning experience both fun and stimulating. Members of this group see DT as a practical way to immerse them in addressing real societal problems. DT aligns with the rigor of Philosophy, where thinking beyond conventional boundaries is valued.	Incorporate more DT exercises, case studies, or projects where students can apply their creativity to philosophical challenges. Provide opportunities for students to engage in collaborative, real-world problems. Provide a platform for students to apply DT principles to various issues.
Factor 2: Prolegomenal Design Thinkers	They are DT enthusiasts with keen interest and possibly prior experience in design-related activities. They exhibit a resourceful and self- reliant attitude, bootstrapping their way up to create innovative solutions. Their thoughts are disruptive and forward-thinking. They have a wealth of creative and innovative concepts that they are eager to explore and develop.	Use various teaching strategies to provide for differentiation among learners. Promote cross-disciplinary collaboration, allowing students to work with peers from diverse fields to tackle complex problems. Organize exhibitions, showcases, or demo days where these students can present their projects and innovations to a wider audience.
Factor 3: Non-Design Humanitarian	They value the human aspect of DT the most and consider the needs and experiences of people when making decisions and designing projects. For them, DT is a platform for self- expression of their creative potential.	Provide opportunities for skill- building and confidence-building in DT, such as workshops, mentoring, and peer support. Emphasize how DT can lead to tangible, real-world impacts and how their projects can benefit people. Create a supportive learning environment where students are encouraged to express themselves.
Factor 4: Recalcitrant Colliders	They simply want to enjoy DT for the sake of doing it.	Encourage them to know the value of DT by making them more engaged in real-world problems.