# A Systematic Review on Design Thinking Integrated Learning in K-12 Education
## 5 Conclusions and Implication  
In the wake of the popularity in design thinking, this literature review analyses 43 high-quality empirical papers on DTIL in K-12 education. The current status and future directions are identified to narrow the gaps. The major findings are summarized as follow. First, as deduced from the publication trend (see Figure 1), a positive picture of design thinking emerges. However, the empirical evidence to support the effectiveness of DTIL is still rather limited. The results indicate that although samples from preschool to high school are all involved, it shows an uneven distribution of the age groups in K-12 education, which calls for more research to engage the younger learners (like kindergarten and primary school students) into DTIL. If possible, studies with longer periods and larger samples are expected. Second, DTIL has the potential to deepen students' learning with diversified models in various subject domains, including that of STEM and non-STEM, while the most mentioned applications are the fields of STEM, which is consistent with the result of previous study [12]. In addition, the design thinking models applied varied among studies, which suggests inconsistency in current perceptions of design thinking. On one hand, a prevailing view was to apply design thinking from a thinking model of designer or designer's mindsets (e.g., [40; 41; 42; 43; 44; 45; 46; 47; 48; 49; 50; 51; 52]), in other words, think of it as a unique problem-solving methodology (e.g., [33; 35; 37; 42; 44; 48; 53]). Our study also supports this view. The theoretical basis of design thinking has been propositioned to be interconnected to [PERSON]'s notion of pragmatist inquiry and aesthetic experience [23; 36]. The corresponding training goals were the abilities required to solve the complex and open-ended problems, such as communication skills, cooperation skills, creativity, and critical thinking, etc. On the other hand, however, there were differences in the focus of studies on the application of design thinking, leading to the emergence of different models or competence frameworks. For example, some studies focused on inquiry and experimentation in the early stages of problem solving (such as discover, define, empathy), others focused on modelling or prototyping during the problem-solving process, and still others discussed the impact of emotions, etc. How do teachers choose or construct a design thinking model or framework that meets the needs of the teaching situation? In fact, it is difficult to construct a universal design thinking model to deal with a variety of complex educational scenarios. Therefore, to meet the teaching needs of more subject domains, future study needs more exploration of the design thinking models that could be compatible with teaching practice in K-12 education. Referring to the existing empirical research, it may be necessary to comprehensively consider related factors such as students, teachers, and the school environments. In addition, although existing research claims that design thinking has great educational value, it is difficult to cover all aspects at once. Therefore, it is a feasible way to develop various competencies by stages or disciplines. Future study could bring design thinking into both STEM and non-STEM curriculums to further verify how design thinking will help students build knowledge and skills in a wider range of domains. Furthermore, teachers can make targeted combinations or adjustments of elements in a design thinking model or framework to better meet teaching needs. Third, in response to the many existing design thinking models and subject domains, various dependent variables were measured by different instruments. Mostly, the empirical studies evaluated students' performance on design thinking, such as the design processes and design works. Another two types of learning performances that were paid close attention were emotional/social aspects and subject concepts.