Vol. 12/ Núm. 3 2025 pág. 3976
https://doi.org/10.69639/arandu.v12i3.1604
Enhancing University EFL Learners' Speaking Skills through
Design Thinking: Preliminary Findings
Mejora de las habilidades de expresión oral de estudiantes universitarios de inglés como
lengua extranjera mediante la técnica diseño de pensamiento: resultados preliminares
Laura Mariscal Touzard
laura.mariscalt@ug.edu.ec
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7418-2797
Facultad de Filosofía, Letras y Ciencias de la Educación
Universidad de Guayaquil
Martha Castillo Noriega
marthacastillo@uees.edu.ec
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7867-7463
Facultad de Educación / Universidad de Especialidades Espíritu Santo
Alexis Contreras Falcones
alexiscontreras@uees.edu.ec
https://orcid.org/0009-0007-3958-0953
Facultad de Educación / Universidad de Especialidades Espíritu Santo
Albania Cadena Aguilar
alcadena@espol.edu.ec
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1766-380X
Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral
Alison Herrera Conforme
aliliher@espol.edu.ec
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7636-0606
Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral
Artículo recibido: 18 agosto 2025 - Aceptado para publicación: 28 septiembre 2025
Conflictos de intereses: Ninguno que declarar.
ABSTRACT
In the 21st century, university programs must respond to the demands of the job market, which
increasingly requires professionals capable of adapting to dynamic environments and generating
innovative ideas. The development of critical and creative thinking, the promotion of collaborative
learning, and preparation to face future challenges are essential to address complex problems and
achieve professional success. In this context, Design Thinking (DT), a methodology focused on creative
problem-solving, offers a promising strategy for integration into higher education, particularly in the
teaching of English as a Foreign Language (EFL). This study examines the impact of a DT-based project
on the development of speaking skills in 86 students from a public university in Ecuador, divided into
a control group (n = 43) and an experimental group (n = 43). Quantitative data were analyzed using
descriptive and inferential statistics, while qualitative responses were examined through thematic
Vol. 12/ Núm. 3 2025 pág. 3977
coding. The findings indicate that the implementation of DT improved the speaking performance of the
experimental group by 0.4 points and fostered the development of both cognitive and emotional
competencies, such as problem-solving, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, cognitive structuring, and
teamwork. However, participants reported challenges related to time organization, and lack of
confidence at the beginning of the project. Overall, the results support DT as an effective
methodological approach to promote context-based oral communication. The authors recommend
creating Design Thinking experiences based on students' professional interests to develop meaningful
language skills to apply in real-world situations.
Keywords: design thinking, oral expression, creative problem-solving skills
RESUMEN
En el siglo XXI, los programas universitarios deben responder a las demandas del mercado laboral, el
cual requiere cada vez más profesionales capaces de adaptarse a entornos dinámicos y generar ideas
innovadoras. El desarrollo del pensamiento crítico y creativo, la promoción del aprendizaje colaborativo
y la preparación para enfrentar los desafíos futuros son esenciales para abordar problemas complejos y
alcanzar el éxito profesional. En este contexto, el Design Thinking (DT), una metodología centrada en
la resolución creativa de problemas, ofrece una estrategia prometedora para su integración en la
educación superior, especialmente en la enseñanza del inglés como lengua extranjera (EFL, por sus
siglas en inglés). Este estudio examina el impacto de un proyecto basado en DT en el desarrollo de las
habilidades de expresión oral en 86 estudiantes de una universidad pública en Ecuador, divididos en un
grupo de control (n = 43) y un grupo experimental (n = 43). Los datos cuantitativos fueron analizados
utilizando estadísticas descriptivas e inferenciales, mientras que las respuestas cualitativas se
examinaron mediante codificación temática. Los resultados muestran que implementar Design
Thinking (DT) mejoró en 0,4 puntos el rendimiento oral del grupo experimental y potenció
competencias cognitivas y socioemocionales: resolución de problemas, motivación intrínseca y
extrínseca, estructuración cognitiva y trabajo en equipo. Surgieron dificultades de gestión del tiempo y
baja confianza inicial. En conjunto, la evidencia respalda al DT como un enfoque eficaz para promover
la comunicación oral situada. Se recomienda diseñar experiencias de DT alineadas con los intereses
profesionales, a fin de desarrollar habilidades lingüísticas significativas y transferibles a contextos del
mundo real.
Palabras clave: design thinking, expresión oral, resolución creativa de problemas
Todo el contenido de la Revista Científica Internacional Arandu UTIC publicado en este sitio está disponible bajo licencia
Creative Commons Atribution 4.0 International.
coding. The findings indicate that the implementation of DT improved the speaking performance of the
experimental group by 0.4 points and fostered the development of both cognitive and emotional
competencies, such as problem-solving, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, cognitive structuring, and
teamwork. However, participants reported challenges related to time organization, and lack of
confidence at the beginning of the project. Overall, the results support DT as an effective
methodological approach to promote context-based oral communication. The authors recommend
creating Design Thinking experiences based on students' professional interests to develop meaningful
language skills to apply in real-world situations.
Keywords: design thinking, oral expression, creative problem-solving skills
RESUMEN
En el siglo XXI, los programas universitarios deben responder a las demandas del mercado laboral, el
cual requiere cada vez más profesionales capaces de adaptarse a entornos dinámicos y generar ideas
innovadoras. El desarrollo del pensamiento crítico y creativo, la promoción del aprendizaje colaborativo
y la preparación para enfrentar los desafíos futuros son esenciales para abordar problemas complejos y
alcanzar el éxito profesional. En este contexto, el Design Thinking (DT), una metodología centrada en
la resolución creativa de problemas, ofrece una estrategia prometedora para su integración en la
educación superior, especialmente en la enseñanza del inglés como lengua extranjera (EFL, por sus
siglas en inglés). Este estudio examina el impacto de un proyecto basado en DT en el desarrollo de las
habilidades de expresión oral en 86 estudiantes de una universidad pública en Ecuador, divididos en un
grupo de control (n = 43) y un grupo experimental (n = 43). Los datos cuantitativos fueron analizados
utilizando estadísticas descriptivas e inferenciales, mientras que las respuestas cualitativas se
examinaron mediante codificación temática. Los resultados muestran que implementar Design
Thinking (DT) mejoró en 0,4 puntos el rendimiento oral del grupo experimental y potenció
competencias cognitivas y socioemocionales: resolución de problemas, motivación intrínseca y
extrínseca, estructuración cognitiva y trabajo en equipo. Surgieron dificultades de gestión del tiempo y
baja confianza inicial. En conjunto, la evidencia respalda al DT como un enfoque eficaz para promover
la comunicación oral situada. Se recomienda diseñar experiencias de DT alineadas con los intereses
profesionales, a fin de desarrollar habilidades lingüísticas significativas y transferibles a contextos del
mundo real.
Palabras clave: design thinking, expresión oral, resolución creativa de problemas
Todo el contenido de la Revista Científica Internacional Arandu UTIC publicado en este sitio está disponible bajo licencia
Creative Commons Atribution 4.0 International.
Vol. 12/ Núm. 3 2025 pág. 3978
INTRODUCTION
In today’s interconnected world, speaking English fluently has become not only an important
academic objective but also a crucial professional and social skill. As the primary language of global
communication, English places increasing demands on students in public universities, particularly in
non-English-speaking contexts like Ecuador, where limited classroom time and minimal real-world
exposure create significant barriers to oral proficiency (Salomone, 2022). Although pedagogical
approaches such as role-plays, group presentations, and dialogue tasks have been introduced, many
learners continue to struggle with speaking. Common difficulties include fear of making mistakes,
restricted vocabulary, insufficient speaking opportunities, and low self-confidence.
One of the most pervasive problems faced by non-native English learners in public universities
is the lack of confidence when speaking. This insecurity often stems from a fear of making grammatical
or pronunciation mistakes in front of others, which may lead to embarrassment or criticism. Many
students have been conditioned through traditional, test-focused language instruction, where accuracy
is emphasized over fluency, and errors are penalized rather than treated as part of the learning process.
As a result, learners frequently hesitate to participate in oral tasks or avoid speaking altogether (Alazeer
& Ahmed, 2024). This fear of failure limits their ability to practice, experiment with the language, and
develop fluency, ultimately creating a cycle of silence and low performance in speaking skills. In large
classrooms with limited individual attention, students may feel even more exposed and unsupported
when trying to communicate in English, reinforcing their reluctance to speak.
Another major obstacle in the development of oral skills is the absence of authentic and
meaningful interaction in English (Hwang, et. al, 2024). In many general English programs offered in
public universities, speaking activities are often limited to controlled, scripted dialogues or repetition
exercises that do not reflect real-life communication (Durán & García, 2021). This lack of real-world
application makes it difficult for learners to engage with the language in a purposeful way;
consequently, they fail to develop communicative competence. Students frequently report that they do
not have enough opportunities to practice English outside the classroom or even within it, especially in
environments where classmates and instructors also share the same native language. The limited
exposure to spontaneous conversations, problem-solving discussions, or collaborative tasks in English
results in low oral fluency levels, poor listening comprehension, and struggles to express ideas clearly
and effectively in real situations (Granda, Parra, et al., 2024). Language learning, therefore, remains
theoretical rather than practical without opportunities for meaningful interaction.
A third significant barrier to speaking development is the absence of learner autonomy in many
classrooms, where students are not allowed to make choices or take responsibility for their learning. In
traditional settings, learners get used to following rigid instructions and heavily rely on the teacher to
validate their performance (Rahmasari et al., 2025). This teacher-centered model discourages learner
initiative, self-correction, and decision-making skills that are essential for real communicative success.
INTRODUCTION
In today’s interconnected world, speaking English fluently has become not only an important
academic objective but also a crucial professional and social skill. As the primary language of global
communication, English places increasing demands on students in public universities, particularly in
non-English-speaking contexts like Ecuador, where limited classroom time and minimal real-world
exposure create significant barriers to oral proficiency (Salomone, 2022). Although pedagogical
approaches such as role-plays, group presentations, and dialogue tasks have been introduced, many
learners continue to struggle with speaking. Common difficulties include fear of making mistakes,
restricted vocabulary, insufficient speaking opportunities, and low self-confidence.
One of the most pervasive problems faced by non-native English learners in public universities
is the lack of confidence when speaking. This insecurity often stems from a fear of making grammatical
or pronunciation mistakes in front of others, which may lead to embarrassment or criticism. Many
students have been conditioned through traditional, test-focused language instruction, where accuracy
is emphasized over fluency, and errors are penalized rather than treated as part of the learning process.
As a result, learners frequently hesitate to participate in oral tasks or avoid speaking altogether (Alazeer
& Ahmed, 2024). This fear of failure limits their ability to practice, experiment with the language, and
develop fluency, ultimately creating a cycle of silence and low performance in speaking skills. In large
classrooms with limited individual attention, students may feel even more exposed and unsupported
when trying to communicate in English, reinforcing their reluctance to speak.
Another major obstacle in the development of oral skills is the absence of authentic and
meaningful interaction in English (Hwang, et. al, 2024). In many general English programs offered in
public universities, speaking activities are often limited to controlled, scripted dialogues or repetition
exercises that do not reflect real-life communication (Durán & García, 2021). This lack of real-world
application makes it difficult for learners to engage with the language in a purposeful way;
consequently, they fail to develop communicative competence. Students frequently report that they do
not have enough opportunities to practice English outside the classroom or even within it, especially in
environments where classmates and instructors also share the same native language. The limited
exposure to spontaneous conversations, problem-solving discussions, or collaborative tasks in English
results in low oral fluency levels, poor listening comprehension, and struggles to express ideas clearly
and effectively in real situations (Granda, Parra, et al., 2024). Language learning, therefore, remains
theoretical rather than practical without opportunities for meaningful interaction.
A third significant barrier to speaking development is the absence of learner autonomy in many
classrooms, where students are not allowed to make choices or take responsibility for their learning. In
traditional settings, learners get used to following rigid instructions and heavily rely on the teacher to
validate their performance (Rahmasari et al., 2025). This teacher-centered model discourages learner
initiative, self-correction, and decision-making skills that are essential for real communicative success.
Vol. 12/ Núm. 3 2025 pág. 3979
When students are not trained to take ownership of their learning or make decisions independently, they
struggle with speaking tasks that require planning, creativity, or spontaneity. In project-based or
interactive learning environments, these students may experience discomfort or confusion, as they are
unaccustomed to the roles of active participant or co-creator of their own prompts. This lack of
autonomy limits oral practice and prevents students from building confidence, setting personal goals,
or engaging meaningfully with peers in English (Li, et al., 2024).
These persistent problems suggest a gap between the teaching strategies employed and the
learners’ personal needs, emotional readiness, and communicative realities. The challenge is not only
about creating opportunities to speak, but also about designing meaningful, supportive learning
experiences with authentic interaction in the English language that would help these present university
students to make decisions later as a job team member in professional settings. In this context, Design
Thinking (DT) emerges as a promising approach to address the complex and interconnected challenges
that English learners face in developing oral communication skills. Design Thinking fosters empathy,
collaboration, creativity, assertive communication, and reflection—all of which are essential to
overcome fear of speaking, encourage authentic interaction in real-life settings, and promote learner
autonomy to resume student accountability (Cleminson & Cowie, 2021). Unlike traditional pedagogies,
DT sets the learner at the core of the process and emphasizes a human-centered and iterative process
through its five structured stages: Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test, students engage in
tasks that simulate real-world communication, require peer collaboration, and support a growth mindset
as active problem-solvers. (Baird & Dilger, 2023)
Therefore, this study aims to examine the impact of implementing DT on speaking skills among
EFL students in a public university in Ecuador. It seeks to answer the following research questions: (a)
To what extent does the implementation of the Design Thinking approach improve the oral expression
skills of EFL students compared to those who follow traditional instruction in a public university
setting? (b) What perceived benefits do EFL students identify after participating in a Design Thinking-
based speaking project? (c) What challenges do students face when integrating the Design Thinking
approach into the EFL curriculum at the university level?
Design Thinking
Design Thinking is a human-centered problem-solving approach that emphasizes creativity,
empathy, and iterative learning (Brown, 2009). It was popularized in the early 2000s by David Kelley,
founder of the design company IDEO and the Stanford school. The process typically includes five key
stages: Empathize, where designers seek to understand users' needs and experiences; Define, where the
core problem is clearly articulated; Ideate, which involves generating a wide range of creative solutions;
Prototype, where simple, low-cost versions of the best ideas are built; and Test, where these prototypes
are evaluated with users and improved based on feedback. This iterative cycle helps refine both
understanding of the problem and the solutions.
When students are not trained to take ownership of their learning or make decisions independently, they
struggle with speaking tasks that require planning, creativity, or spontaneity. In project-based or
interactive learning environments, these students may experience discomfort or confusion, as they are
unaccustomed to the roles of active participant or co-creator of their own prompts. This lack of
autonomy limits oral practice and prevents students from building confidence, setting personal goals,
or engaging meaningfully with peers in English (Li, et al., 2024).
These persistent problems suggest a gap between the teaching strategies employed and the
learners’ personal needs, emotional readiness, and communicative realities. The challenge is not only
about creating opportunities to speak, but also about designing meaningful, supportive learning
experiences with authentic interaction in the English language that would help these present university
students to make decisions later as a job team member in professional settings. In this context, Design
Thinking (DT) emerges as a promising approach to address the complex and interconnected challenges
that English learners face in developing oral communication skills. Design Thinking fosters empathy,
collaboration, creativity, assertive communication, and reflection—all of which are essential to
overcome fear of speaking, encourage authentic interaction in real-life settings, and promote learner
autonomy to resume student accountability (Cleminson & Cowie, 2021). Unlike traditional pedagogies,
DT sets the learner at the core of the process and emphasizes a human-centered and iterative process
through its five structured stages: Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test, students engage in
tasks that simulate real-world communication, require peer collaboration, and support a growth mindset
as active problem-solvers. (Baird & Dilger, 2023)
Therefore, this study aims to examine the impact of implementing DT on speaking skills among
EFL students in a public university in Ecuador. It seeks to answer the following research questions: (a)
To what extent does the implementation of the Design Thinking approach improve the oral expression
skills of EFL students compared to those who follow traditional instruction in a public university
setting? (b) What perceived benefits do EFL students identify after participating in a Design Thinking-
based speaking project? (c) What challenges do students face when integrating the Design Thinking
approach into the EFL curriculum at the university level?
Design Thinking
Design Thinking is a human-centered problem-solving approach that emphasizes creativity,
empathy, and iterative learning (Brown, 2009). It was popularized in the early 2000s by David Kelley,
founder of the design company IDEO and the Stanford school. The process typically includes five key
stages: Empathize, where designers seek to understand users' needs and experiences; Define, where the
core problem is clearly articulated; Ideate, which involves generating a wide range of creative solutions;
Prototype, where simple, low-cost versions of the best ideas are built; and Test, where these prototypes
are evaluated with users and improved based on feedback. This iterative cycle helps refine both
understanding of the problem and the solutions.
Vol. 12/ Núm. 3 2025 pág. 3980
Each step encourages active participation, collaboration, and critical thinking, making Design
Thinking particularly suitable for educational contexts. When applied in the classroom, especially in
language learning, it can engage students in meaningful tasks that require communication, problem-
solving, and reflection, which are essential for developing oral skills in English.
Design Thinking and EFL
Design Thinking, though originally developed in the fields of engineering and product design,
has found meaningful applications in education, including the teaching of EFL. Its emphasis on
empathy, creativity, collaboration, and iterative learning aligns well with communicative language
teaching approaches (Liedtka, 2018). In the EFL classroom, Design Thinking can foster engaging, real-
world tasks where learners use the target language to define problems, brainstorm ideas, and present
solutions, activities that naturally promote speaking practice. According to Richards (2006) and Brown
(2007), language learning is most effective when it is interactive, student-centered, and embedded in
real communication, which mirrors the core principles of Design Thinking. Puccio et al. (2011) also
emphasize how creativity and innovation, central to Design Thinking, can enhance learners’
engagement and communicative competence.
Numerous studies have explored this intersection. For instance, Jones (2024) highlights how
Design Thinking supports 21st-century skills in language learning, particularly critical thinking and
communication. Similarly, Cleminson, & Cowie (2021) demonstrate how applying Design Thinking in
EFL contexts encourages deeper learner involvement and sustained motivation. Through group
collaboration, idea development, and peer feedback activities built into the Design Thinking cycle,
learners can improve fluency, vocabulary usage, and confidence in speaking English.
Theories Behind Design Thinking
A key theory that supports Design Thinking is Constructivim. Particularly rooted in Jean Piaget
and Lev Vygotsky and later increased in scope by Seymour Papert. The authors Schcolnik et al. (2006)
explain that constructivism views the mind as an active agent seeking knowledge as it is constructed
through interaction with the environment, not merely transferred. This interaction is developed through
activities, culture and specific contexts where learners build meaningful knowledge through
construction and evaluation. While Piaget focused on cognitive structures, Vygotsky remarked on the
social origins of cognition. Therefore, this theory can reshape educational practices, highlighting active
knowledge construction.
Seymour Papert’s (1982) theory, which is closely aligned with Design Thinking, is called
Constructionism, an evolution of Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s Constructivism. While Constructivism
highlights how people construct knowledge, Constructionism adds that learning happens most
effectively when people are actively making things in the world. This theory emphasizes student-
centered, discovery-based learning where learners build on prior knowledge through hands-on
experiences and creative problem-solving. Often described as "learning-by-making," it encourages
students to draw their own conclusions by creating meaningful, social artifacts. Teachers act as
Each step encourages active participation, collaboration, and critical thinking, making Design
Thinking particularly suitable for educational contexts. When applied in the classroom, especially in
language learning, it can engage students in meaningful tasks that require communication, problem-
solving, and reflection, which are essential for developing oral skills in English.
Design Thinking and EFL
Design Thinking, though originally developed in the fields of engineering and product design,
has found meaningful applications in education, including the teaching of EFL. Its emphasis on
empathy, creativity, collaboration, and iterative learning aligns well with communicative language
teaching approaches (Liedtka, 2018). In the EFL classroom, Design Thinking can foster engaging, real-
world tasks where learners use the target language to define problems, brainstorm ideas, and present
solutions, activities that naturally promote speaking practice. According to Richards (2006) and Brown
(2007), language learning is most effective when it is interactive, student-centered, and embedded in
real communication, which mirrors the core principles of Design Thinking. Puccio et al. (2011) also
emphasize how creativity and innovation, central to Design Thinking, can enhance learners’
engagement and communicative competence.
Numerous studies have explored this intersection. For instance, Jones (2024) highlights how
Design Thinking supports 21st-century skills in language learning, particularly critical thinking and
communication. Similarly, Cleminson, & Cowie (2021) demonstrate how applying Design Thinking in
EFL contexts encourages deeper learner involvement and sustained motivation. Through group
collaboration, idea development, and peer feedback activities built into the Design Thinking cycle,
learners can improve fluency, vocabulary usage, and confidence in speaking English.
Theories Behind Design Thinking
A key theory that supports Design Thinking is Constructivim. Particularly rooted in Jean Piaget
and Lev Vygotsky and later increased in scope by Seymour Papert. The authors Schcolnik et al. (2006)
explain that constructivism views the mind as an active agent seeking knowledge as it is constructed
through interaction with the environment, not merely transferred. This interaction is developed through
activities, culture and specific contexts where learners build meaningful knowledge through
construction and evaluation. While Piaget focused on cognitive structures, Vygotsky remarked on the
social origins of cognition. Therefore, this theory can reshape educational practices, highlighting active
knowledge construction.
Seymour Papert’s (1982) theory, which is closely aligned with Design Thinking, is called
Constructionism, an evolution of Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s Constructivism. While Constructivism
highlights how people construct knowledge, Constructionism adds that learning happens most
effectively when people are actively making things in the world. This theory emphasizes student-
centered, discovery-based learning where learners build on prior knowledge through hands-on
experiences and creative problem-solving. Often described as "learning-by-making," it encourages
students to draw their own conclusions by creating meaningful, social artifacts. Teachers act as
Vol. 12/ Núm. 3 2025 pág. 3981
facilitators rather than direct instructors, guiding students to explore and support each other’s
understanding. One key method, problem-based learning, challenges students with multiple problems,
promoting deep engagement—especially effective in subjects like mathematics, where diverse
problem-solving strategies stimulate critical thinking.
Design Thinking (DT) offers an innovative, student-centered approach that complements well-
established EFL theories such as Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), Task-Based Language
Teaching (TBLT), and Constructivism. CLT emphasizes meaningful communication and learner
interaction (Richards, 2006), both of which are core elements of the DT process. In DT, students engage
in real-world problem-solving tasks that require collaboration, empathy, and language use for authentic
purposes (Brown, 2006). This aligns with TBLT, which values tasks as the central unit of planning and
instruction, encouraging learners to use the language to accomplish specific goals (Ellis, 2003). Design
Thinking’s iterative process—empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test—mirrors the kind of
learning cycles found in constructivist classrooms, where learners build knowledge through exploration,
reflection, and adaptation (Schön, 1983; Puccio et al., 2011). By integrating these theoretical
foundations, DT offers a pedagogical framework that enhances communicative competence and learner
engagement in EFL settings.
In the EFL classroom, applying DT means moving beyond textbook dialogues to experiential
learning, where students co-create solutions, engage in peer feedback, and present ideas using English.
These practices foster autonomy, creativity, and higher motivation. As Richards (2006) and Brown
(2007) argue, language acquisition flourishes in environments that are interactive, meaningful, and
socially constructed. Design Thinking supports this by framing language use within relevant,
collaborative challenges. Moreover, scholars like Batubara et al. (2024) emphasize that integrating
creativity and innovation through DT can significantly enhance learners' communicative competence,
especially in speaking. Thus, Design Thinking is not just a methodology for design fields—it is a robust
framework that enriches EFL pedagogy by deepening student engagement and promoting authentic
language use.
Implementing DT to improve speaking
Design Thinking (DT) has emerged as a valuable pedagogical approach to enhance speaking
skills in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts. Cleminson, & Cowie (2021) emphasize that
the integration of DT into classroom instruction significantly improves learners’ oral fluency and
confidence. This is largely due to the interactive and student-centered nature of DT, which engages
learners in meaningful communication throughout its core phases—empathizing, ideating, prototyping,
and testing. The structure of DT encourages students to explore real-life issues that are relevant to their
lives, promoting a stronger sense of ownership over their learning. As a result, students are not only
more motivated but also more engaged in language tasks that are purposeful and personal.
In addition to fostering motivation, DT supports the development of critical thinking and
collaborative skills that enhance oral communication. Granda et al. (2024) note that students are
facilitators rather than direct instructors, guiding students to explore and support each other’s
understanding. One key method, problem-based learning, challenges students with multiple problems,
promoting deep engagement—especially effective in subjects like mathematics, where diverse
problem-solving strategies stimulate critical thinking.
Design Thinking (DT) offers an innovative, student-centered approach that complements well-
established EFL theories such as Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), Task-Based Language
Teaching (TBLT), and Constructivism. CLT emphasizes meaningful communication and learner
interaction (Richards, 2006), both of which are core elements of the DT process. In DT, students engage
in real-world problem-solving tasks that require collaboration, empathy, and language use for authentic
purposes (Brown, 2006). This aligns with TBLT, which values tasks as the central unit of planning and
instruction, encouraging learners to use the language to accomplish specific goals (Ellis, 2003). Design
Thinking’s iterative process—empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test—mirrors the kind of
learning cycles found in constructivist classrooms, where learners build knowledge through exploration,
reflection, and adaptation (Schön, 1983; Puccio et al., 2011). By integrating these theoretical
foundations, DT offers a pedagogical framework that enhances communicative competence and learner
engagement in EFL settings.
In the EFL classroom, applying DT means moving beyond textbook dialogues to experiential
learning, where students co-create solutions, engage in peer feedback, and present ideas using English.
These practices foster autonomy, creativity, and higher motivation. As Richards (2006) and Brown
(2007) argue, language acquisition flourishes in environments that are interactive, meaningful, and
socially constructed. Design Thinking supports this by framing language use within relevant,
collaborative challenges. Moreover, scholars like Batubara et al. (2024) emphasize that integrating
creativity and innovation through DT can significantly enhance learners' communicative competence,
especially in speaking. Thus, Design Thinking is not just a methodology for design fields—it is a robust
framework that enriches EFL pedagogy by deepening student engagement and promoting authentic
language use.
Implementing DT to improve speaking
Design Thinking (DT) has emerged as a valuable pedagogical approach to enhance speaking
skills in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts. Cleminson, & Cowie (2021) emphasize that
the integration of DT into classroom instruction significantly improves learners’ oral fluency and
confidence. This is largely due to the interactive and student-centered nature of DT, which engages
learners in meaningful communication throughout its core phases—empathizing, ideating, prototyping,
and testing. The structure of DT encourages students to explore real-life issues that are relevant to their
lives, promoting a stronger sense of ownership over their learning. As a result, students are not only
more motivated but also more engaged in language tasks that are purposeful and personal.
In addition to fostering motivation, DT supports the development of critical thinking and
collaborative skills that enhance oral communication. Granda et al. (2024) note that students are
Vol. 12/ Núm. 3 2025 pág. 3982
encouraged to reflect on ideas, articulate thoughts clearly, and engage with peers in meaningful
discussion. These experiences help learners to use English in functional ways, improving both fluency
and clarity. Guaman-Quintanila et al. (2020) further argue that the DT process promotes teamwork and
interpersonal communication, as learners co-construct solutions and provide mutual feedback. This
collaborative environment fosters a psychologically safe space, enabling students to take speaking risks
without fear of judgment.
Perhaps most significantly, DT helps to reduce students’ anxiety when speaking in front of others.
As learners become more comfortable through repeated interaction, peer support, and iterative
feedback, their fear of public speaking decreases. Gregersen and Horwitz (2002) explain that speaking
anxiety is a significant barrier in EFL contexts, and lowering it is key to improving performance. The
DT framework addresses this by allowing students to gradually build their confidence across multiple
stages, from initial brainstorming to final presentations. By the time they reach the testing stage, many
students report feeling far more relaxed and secure in expressing themselves in English. This increased
comfort leads to better oral outcomes and a more positive language learning experience overall.
METHODOLOGY
Context
This study was conducted at the Language Center in a public university in Ecuador with an
enrollment of over 10,000 students, all of whom are required to take English modules as part of their
academic curricula. It is developing students’ communicative skills in foreign languages, especially
English. The program is structured into five progressive modules aligned with the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR): Module 1 corresponds to level A1, Module 2 to A2,
Module 3 to B1, Module 4 to B1+, and Module 5 to B2. Each module focuses on strengthening listening,
reading, speaking, and writing skills, preparing students to communicate effectively in both academic
and professional contexts.
Research approach and method
A mixed-method approach with an exploratory sequential design study was applied. It is a
research design used to assess the impact of an intervention or treatment in situations where random
assignment is not feasible (Creswell, 2012). In this study, participants were assigned to different groups
by convenience, as the researcher was immersed in the learning process, and to respect the ethical
procedures of this public Institution.
Participants
The participants of this study are enrolled in a blended B1 course during a semester where they
have 56 in-person hours and 56 autonomous learning hours. This study involved 43 students with an
intermediate level of English proficiency in the intervention group. Over a 10-week semester, these
participants engaged in the implementation of the Design Thinking approach aimed at enhancing their
speaking skills. In parallel, a control group of 43 students with the same proficiency level followed the
encouraged to reflect on ideas, articulate thoughts clearly, and engage with peers in meaningful
discussion. These experiences help learners to use English in functional ways, improving both fluency
and clarity. Guaman-Quintanila et al. (2020) further argue that the DT process promotes teamwork and
interpersonal communication, as learners co-construct solutions and provide mutual feedback. This
collaborative environment fosters a psychologically safe space, enabling students to take speaking risks
without fear of judgment.
Perhaps most significantly, DT helps to reduce students’ anxiety when speaking in front of others.
As learners become more comfortable through repeated interaction, peer support, and iterative
feedback, their fear of public speaking decreases. Gregersen and Horwitz (2002) explain that speaking
anxiety is a significant barrier in EFL contexts, and lowering it is key to improving performance. The
DT framework addresses this by allowing students to gradually build their confidence across multiple
stages, from initial brainstorming to final presentations. By the time they reach the testing stage, many
students report feeling far more relaxed and secure in expressing themselves in English. This increased
comfort leads to better oral outcomes and a more positive language learning experience overall.
METHODOLOGY
Context
This study was conducted at the Language Center in a public university in Ecuador with an
enrollment of over 10,000 students, all of whom are required to take English modules as part of their
academic curricula. It is developing students’ communicative skills in foreign languages, especially
English. The program is structured into five progressive modules aligned with the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR): Module 1 corresponds to level A1, Module 2 to A2,
Module 3 to B1, Module 4 to B1+, and Module 5 to B2. Each module focuses on strengthening listening,
reading, speaking, and writing skills, preparing students to communicate effectively in both academic
and professional contexts.
Research approach and method
A mixed-method approach with an exploratory sequential design study was applied. It is a
research design used to assess the impact of an intervention or treatment in situations where random
assignment is not feasible (Creswell, 2012). In this study, participants were assigned to different groups
by convenience, as the researcher was immersed in the learning process, and to respect the ethical
procedures of this public Institution.
Participants
The participants of this study are enrolled in a blended B1 course during a semester where they
have 56 in-person hours and 56 autonomous learning hours. This study involved 43 students with an
intermediate level of English proficiency in the intervention group. Over a 10-week semester, these
participants engaged in the implementation of the Design Thinking approach aimed at enhancing their
speaking skills. In parallel, a control group of 43 students with the same proficiency level followed the
Vol. 12/ Núm. 3 2025 pág. 3983
regular curriculum without the Design Thinking intervention. Prior to this intervention, a pre-survey
was administered to the 117 students at the same proficiency level during the previous semester to
explore the perceived need and feasibility of introducing a new instructional strategy for developing
oral communication skills.
Techniques and instruments to collect information
This study employed a combination of data collection tools, including pre-tests, post-tests, pre-
surveys, post-surveys, and interviews, to systematically gather, analyse, and interpret data in response
to the research questions. These instruments contributed to ensuring the study’s credibility, validity,
and reliability. In the exploratory phase, a pre-survey to B1+ 117 was applied to collect information on
students’ prior experiences and perceptions related to oral English use, teaching strategies perceptions,
and speaking challenges. Cohen et al. (2018) state that pre-surveys serve as diagnostic tools to explore
participants’ prior knowledge, beliefs, or attitudes before an intervention. They help researchers identify
needs, tailor instruction, and establish baseline data for measuring impact.
As noted by Guskey (2015), in the context of social research, these tools are practical when
assessing the academic progress of students during a particular period. In this research, the pre- and
post-tests played a central role in measuring the impact of the design thinking approach on students’
speaking performance, wherein it was required to deliver a 3-minute problem-solving oral presentation.
As part of the implementation, the teacher introduced the topic, explained the expected structure, and
provided prior guidance to support students in their preparation. The evaluation criteria were
communicated through a rubric, which assigned specific weight to each component: Pronunciation
(12.5%), Fluency (12.5%), Grammar and Vocabulary (25%), Delivery (15%), Structure (10%), and
Content (25%). (Table 1). The given structure is this one: (1) Introduction: hook, significance, and
presenter's name and purpose. (2) Problem Explanation: Identification of the problem and
consequences. (3) Proposed Solution: Multiple Solutions and Benefits. (4) Conclusion: Recap, Call
Attention, and Closing.
Following the implementation of the pre-test and pre-survey, the instructor presented the Design
Thinking methodology to the experimental group and outlined the collaborative nature of the upcoming
project. Students were tasked with identifying a challenge associated with learning English and
designing an innovative solution. They were grouped according to similar learning difficulties and
chose a common topic to work on collaboratively. Over ten weeks, students engaged in both
synchronous and asynchronous collaboration through a shared PowerPoint presentation, which served
as a platform for the teacher and students to offer ongoing feedback.
The students followed the five key stages of Design Thinking:
1. Empathize: Students aimed to identify a real problem and understand the needs and experiences
of other learners. They conducted both secondary and first research by reading relevant articles
in terms of their project topic and creating and applying first interviews with their classmates at
the university. The objective of primary research is to collect original data directly from sources,
regular curriculum without the Design Thinking intervention. Prior to this intervention, a pre-survey
was administered to the 117 students at the same proficiency level during the previous semester to
explore the perceived need and feasibility of introducing a new instructional strategy for developing
oral communication skills.
Techniques and instruments to collect information
This study employed a combination of data collection tools, including pre-tests, post-tests, pre-
surveys, post-surveys, and interviews, to systematically gather, analyse, and interpret data in response
to the research questions. These instruments contributed to ensuring the study’s credibility, validity,
and reliability. In the exploratory phase, a pre-survey to B1+ 117 was applied to collect information on
students’ prior experiences and perceptions related to oral English use, teaching strategies perceptions,
and speaking challenges. Cohen et al. (2018) state that pre-surveys serve as diagnostic tools to explore
participants’ prior knowledge, beliefs, or attitudes before an intervention. They help researchers identify
needs, tailor instruction, and establish baseline data for measuring impact.
As noted by Guskey (2015), in the context of social research, these tools are practical when
assessing the academic progress of students during a particular period. In this research, the pre- and
post-tests played a central role in measuring the impact of the design thinking approach on students’
speaking performance, wherein it was required to deliver a 3-minute problem-solving oral presentation.
As part of the implementation, the teacher introduced the topic, explained the expected structure, and
provided prior guidance to support students in their preparation. The evaluation criteria were
communicated through a rubric, which assigned specific weight to each component: Pronunciation
(12.5%), Fluency (12.5%), Grammar and Vocabulary (25%), Delivery (15%), Structure (10%), and
Content (25%). (Table 1). The given structure is this one: (1) Introduction: hook, significance, and
presenter's name and purpose. (2) Problem Explanation: Identification of the problem and
consequences. (3) Proposed Solution: Multiple Solutions and Benefits. (4) Conclusion: Recap, Call
Attention, and Closing.
Following the implementation of the pre-test and pre-survey, the instructor presented the Design
Thinking methodology to the experimental group and outlined the collaborative nature of the upcoming
project. Students were tasked with identifying a challenge associated with learning English and
designing an innovative solution. They were grouped according to similar learning difficulties and
chose a common topic to work on collaboratively. Over ten weeks, students engaged in both
synchronous and asynchronous collaboration through a shared PowerPoint presentation, which served
as a platform for the teacher and students to offer ongoing feedback.
The students followed the five key stages of Design Thinking:
1. Empathize: Students aimed to identify a real problem and understand the needs and experiences
of other learners. They conducted both secondary and first research by reading relevant articles
in terms of their project topic and creating and applying first interviews with their classmates at
the university. The objective of primary research is to collect original data directly from sources,
Vol. 12/ Núm. 3 2025 pág. 3984
allowing researchers to gain firsthand insights into specific problems, behaviours, or experiences
that have not yet been extensively documented or explored. Conducting interviews in this phase
will enable students to gain a deep understanding of their students’ needs, experiences,
challenges, and motivations from their perspective. Surveys serve as a tool for collecting data
directly from the target users. Students need to listen actively, interact with other students, and
conduct individual and group analysis.
2. Define: In this phase, students identified the core problem, created a matrix of attributes related
to the issue, and wrote a "point of view" statement to frame the challenge. The attribute matrix is
a visual or tabular tool that helps students break down the problem into specific components or
characteristics—such as causes, effects, frequency, emotional impact, or learning context—
which allows for a deeper understanding of the challenge. After analysing their survey data and
observations, they used this matrix to map patterns and recurring elements in their findings.
Subsequently, they formulated a "point of view" (POV) statement, a sentence structure that
combines the user, their need, and the insight derived from the research. Throughout the Define phase,
students enhanced their critical thinking, data analysis, synthesis, and teamwork abilities. As a result,
they learned to clearly define real problems, organize their thoughts more coherently in English, and
strengthen their argumentation and logical organization skills.
3. Ideate: Learners generated a wide range of creative ideas to address the problem. These ideas
were later evaluated using a difficulty-impact matrix. This decision-making tool helps prioritize
solutions by plotting them based on two dimensions: how difficult they are to implement and
how much positive impact they would have if implemented. Students positioned each idea on a
simple 2x2 grid with four quadrants:
• High impact / Low difficulty → Quick wins (top priority)
• High impact / High difficulty → Major projects (valuable but complex)
• Low impact / Low difficulty → Minor improvements
• Low impact / High difficulty → Avoid or postpone
By using this matrix, students learned to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of their proposals
objectively, which encouraged strategic thinking. During this phase, students developed creativity,
problem-solving abilities, decision-making, and collaborative skills. The ideation process provided a
judgment-free space that encouraged open exploration of ideas. As a result, learners were able to expand
their vocabulary, express ideas more fluently in English, and evaluate and refine proposals
constructively, based on their relevance and viability.
4. Prototype: Students developed a simple version of their best solution, presented in a storyboard
format—a visual sequence of sketches or slides that illustrated how their proposed solution would
work in a real-life context. This allowed them to conceptualize abstract ideas and communicate
them more clearly. The prototype was then evaluated using a feedback matrix that included four
categories: "likes" (what worked well), "critiques" (what could be improved), "doubts"
allowing researchers to gain firsthand insights into specific problems, behaviours, or experiences
that have not yet been extensively documented or explored. Conducting interviews in this phase
will enable students to gain a deep understanding of their students’ needs, experiences,
challenges, and motivations from their perspective. Surveys serve as a tool for collecting data
directly from the target users. Students need to listen actively, interact with other students, and
conduct individual and group analysis.
2. Define: In this phase, students identified the core problem, created a matrix of attributes related
to the issue, and wrote a "point of view" statement to frame the challenge. The attribute matrix is
a visual or tabular tool that helps students break down the problem into specific components or
characteristics—such as causes, effects, frequency, emotional impact, or learning context—
which allows for a deeper understanding of the challenge. After analysing their survey data and
observations, they used this matrix to map patterns and recurring elements in their findings.
Subsequently, they formulated a "point of view" (POV) statement, a sentence structure that
combines the user, their need, and the insight derived from the research. Throughout the Define phase,
students enhanced their critical thinking, data analysis, synthesis, and teamwork abilities. As a result,
they learned to clearly define real problems, organize their thoughts more coherently in English, and
strengthen their argumentation and logical organization skills.
3. Ideate: Learners generated a wide range of creative ideas to address the problem. These ideas
were later evaluated using a difficulty-impact matrix. This decision-making tool helps prioritize
solutions by plotting them based on two dimensions: how difficult they are to implement and
how much positive impact they would have if implemented. Students positioned each idea on a
simple 2x2 grid with four quadrants:
• High impact / Low difficulty → Quick wins (top priority)
• High impact / High difficulty → Major projects (valuable but complex)
• Low impact / Low difficulty → Minor improvements
• Low impact / High difficulty → Avoid or postpone
By using this matrix, students learned to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of their proposals
objectively, which encouraged strategic thinking. During this phase, students developed creativity,
problem-solving abilities, decision-making, and collaborative skills. The ideation process provided a
judgment-free space that encouraged open exploration of ideas. As a result, learners were able to expand
their vocabulary, express ideas more fluently in English, and evaluate and refine proposals
constructively, based on their relevance and viability.
4. Prototype: Students developed a simple version of their best solution, presented in a storyboard
format—a visual sequence of sketches or slides that illustrated how their proposed solution would
work in a real-life context. This allowed them to conceptualize abstract ideas and communicate
them more clearly. The prototype was then evaluated using a feedback matrix that included four
categories: "likes" (what worked well), "critiques" (what could be improved), "doubts"
Vol. 12/ Núm. 3 2025 pág. 3985
(uncertainties or unclear elements), and "suggestions for improvement". This structured feedback
process promoted reflective thinking and peer collaboration.
During this phase, students practiced active listening, learned to observe non-verbal cues such
as gestures and facial expressions, and avoided interrupting the speaker to understand better the
user's perspective—key components of empathic communication. They also cultivated visual
thinking, effective communication, organization, teamwork, and openness to feedback. As a
result, learners were able to simplify complex ideas, improve their oral production in English,
and develop perseverance by refining their prototypes through multiple iterations. This iterative
mindset helped reinforce the idea that making mistakes is part of the learning and design
process.
5. Test: Finally, students individually applied the prototypes for 10 days, which was evidenced in
the document. Then, they conducted peer assessment, received feedback from other students,
and made improvements based on the gathered comments and reactions. This stage promoted
adaptability, self-evaluation, reflective thinking, and time management. Learners experienced
authentic feedback, refined their solutions, and strengthened their oral competence through
public presentation. They also learned to embrace errors as an essential part of the learning
process.
After completing the intervention, students were asked to perform the same type of oral
presentation (post-test), following the same structure and assessment rubric. However, this time, they
presented on a topic they had chosen at the beginning of the intervention and had been working on
throughout the ten weeks. They also had the opportunity to generate more ideas before the presentation,
write them down, and discuss them with their peers and students from other groups. They listened to
new ideas and received feedback, which helped them find better solutions to their problem. In this way,
they got more input before giving their post-test. To determine whether the implementation of the new
technique had a significant effect on student performance, an Independent Samples t-test was
conducted. This compared the students' pre- and post-speaking test about a problem-solving oral
presentation before and after the intervention.
The experimental group also responded to a post-survey, and participated in interviews to share
their perspectives and reflections on the use of the Design Thinking methodology. The post-surveys
highlight how the implementation of design thinking influenced their speaking skills in ways that
standardized tests could not fully reveal. Additionally, it confirmed the implementation of its key phases
and its benefits. In addition, interviews were employed to obtain a more comprehensive understanding
of participants' experiences during the application of the five DT phases. As noted by Billups (2019),
interviews serve as a valuable qualitative method for capturing nuanced perceptions, emotional
reactions, and contextual influences that might be overlooked in quantitative research. This approach
also helped identify persisting challenges and examine aspects such as motivation, transferability, and
(uncertainties or unclear elements), and "suggestions for improvement". This structured feedback
process promoted reflective thinking and peer collaboration.
During this phase, students practiced active listening, learned to observe non-verbal cues such
as gestures and facial expressions, and avoided interrupting the speaker to understand better the
user's perspective—key components of empathic communication. They also cultivated visual
thinking, effective communication, organization, teamwork, and openness to feedback. As a
result, learners were able to simplify complex ideas, improve their oral production in English,
and develop perseverance by refining their prototypes through multiple iterations. This iterative
mindset helped reinforce the idea that making mistakes is part of the learning and design
process.
5. Test: Finally, students individually applied the prototypes for 10 days, which was evidenced in
the document. Then, they conducted peer assessment, received feedback from other students,
and made improvements based on the gathered comments and reactions. This stage promoted
adaptability, self-evaluation, reflective thinking, and time management. Learners experienced
authentic feedback, refined their solutions, and strengthened their oral competence through
public presentation. They also learned to embrace errors as an essential part of the learning
process.
After completing the intervention, students were asked to perform the same type of oral
presentation (post-test), following the same structure and assessment rubric. However, this time, they
presented on a topic they had chosen at the beginning of the intervention and had been working on
throughout the ten weeks. They also had the opportunity to generate more ideas before the presentation,
write them down, and discuss them with their peers and students from other groups. They listened to
new ideas and received feedback, which helped them find better solutions to their problem. In this way,
they got more input before giving their post-test. To determine whether the implementation of the new
technique had a significant effect on student performance, an Independent Samples t-test was
conducted. This compared the students' pre- and post-speaking test about a problem-solving oral
presentation before and after the intervention.
The experimental group also responded to a post-survey, and participated in interviews to share
their perspectives and reflections on the use of the Design Thinking methodology. The post-surveys
highlight how the implementation of design thinking influenced their speaking skills in ways that
standardized tests could not fully reveal. Additionally, it confirmed the implementation of its key phases
and its benefits. In addition, interviews were employed to obtain a more comprehensive understanding
of participants' experiences during the application of the five DT phases. As noted by Billups (2019),
interviews serve as a valuable qualitative method for capturing nuanced perceptions, emotional
reactions, and contextual influences that might be overlooked in quantitative research. This approach
also helped identify persisting challenges and examine aspects such as motivation, transferability, and
Vol. 12/ Núm. 3 2025 pág. 3986
the development of supplementary skills. The use of interviews was crucial for assessing both the
effectiveness and the long-term viability of the intervention.
The survey and interview instruments were conducted in Spanish. Although the participants
possessed a B1 level of English, the researchers deemed it necessary to use the students' first language
in order to ensure participants’ complete understanding of the questions and allow them to express their
thoughts more clearly and confidently. Using participants’ first language in data collection instruments
enhances the validity of both qualitative and quantitative research by reducing linguistic barriers and
encouraging more authentic and accurate responses. (Temple & Young, 2004).
The research followed ethical guidelines throughout. Consent was obtained from participants,
ensuring confidentiality and confirming that all collected data would be used solely for this study's
objectives. Participation was voluntary, and students were informed that they could withdraw at any
point without academic consequences. The study involved no extra points, did not affect class
development, and would not harm students’ grades. Data was anonymized and stored securely on
password-protected devices, accessible only to the research team, and measures were taken to safeguard
participants’ well-being.
RESULTS
F-sample- and Independent Samples t-test were conducted to determine whether the
implementation of the new technique had a significant effect on student performance, descriptive
statistics,. Additionally, the Interview analysis was codified with AI-assisted and analyzed by the
authors.
Quantitative Data
Table 1
Descriptive Statistical Analysis of Pre-test and Post-test Results by Criterion for Experimental and
Control Groups
the development of supplementary skills. The use of interviews was crucial for assessing both the
effectiveness and the long-term viability of the intervention.
The survey and interview instruments were conducted in Spanish. Although the participants
possessed a B1 level of English, the researchers deemed it necessary to use the students' first language
in order to ensure participants’ complete understanding of the questions and allow them to express their
thoughts more clearly and confidently. Using participants’ first language in data collection instruments
enhances the validity of both qualitative and quantitative research by reducing linguistic barriers and
encouraging more authentic and accurate responses. (Temple & Young, 2004).
The research followed ethical guidelines throughout. Consent was obtained from participants,
ensuring confidentiality and confirming that all collected data would be used solely for this study's
objectives. Participation was voluntary, and students were informed that they could withdraw at any
point without academic consequences. The study involved no extra points, did not affect class
development, and would not harm students’ grades. Data was anonymized and stored securely on
password-protected devices, accessible only to the research team, and measures were taken to safeguard
participants’ well-being.
RESULTS
F-sample- and Independent Samples t-test were conducted to determine whether the
implementation of the new technique had a significant effect on student performance, descriptive
statistics,. Additionally, the Interview analysis was codified with AI-assisted and analyzed by the
authors.
Quantitative Data
Table 1
Descriptive Statistical Analysis of Pre-test and Post-test Results by Criterion for Experimental and
Control Groups
Vol. 12/ Núm. 3 2025 pág. 3987
The pre- and post-test scores reveal a notable improvement in the speaking performance of the
intervention group across all assessed criteria. In particular, the most significant gains were observed
in the areas of fluency (from 0.98 to 1.12), use of English (from 2.02 to 2.22), and delivery (from 1.16
to 1.33). These improvements suggest that the implementation of Design Thinking encouraged more
fluent, accurate, and confident oral communication. Furthermore, slight but positive changes in
pronunciation, structure, and content show that students not only articulated their ideas more clearly
but also became more capable of organizing and enriching their discourse. This growth aligns with the
collaborative and iterative nature of DT, which provides multiple opportunities for students to express,
refine, and receive feedback on their ideas through real-world speaking tasks.
In contrast, the control group showed more modest gains in their post-test scores, especially in
fluency (from 0.98 to 1.05) and use of English (from 1.82 to 2.03), but with minimal or no improvement
in structure and content. This insight suggests that while traditional instruction may help maintain or
slightly improve speaking performance, it lacks the dynamic, student-centered engagement fostered by
DT. The overall total score increased in the intervention group (from 8.60 to 9.30), which was more
pronounced than that of the control group (from 8.50 to 8.90), supporting the statistical findings that
confirm a significant difference in outcomes. These results suggest that the Design Thinking approach
not only enhanced students’ speaking skills more effectively than traditional methods, but also helped
standardize performance across students, as shown by the reduced standard deviation from 1.4 in the
pre-test to 0.8 in the post-test, and the range in scores.
Table 2
Experimental and Control Group Descriptive Statistical Analysis
Note. M mean; SD Standard deviation; SE Standard error. The table presents descriptive statistics for both the experimental
and control groups. Results include measures of central tendency (mean, median, mode), variability (standard deviation,
sample variance, range), and distribution ( skewness, kurtosis) before and after the intervention
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for both the experimental and control groups within the
pre and post-test sections. In the experimental group, the mean score increased from 8.6 to 9.3, depicting
an improvement after the intervention. Similarly, the control group showed a slight increase in mean
The pre- and post-test scores reveal a notable improvement in the speaking performance of the
intervention group across all assessed criteria. In particular, the most significant gains were observed
in the areas of fluency (from 0.98 to 1.12), use of English (from 2.02 to 2.22), and delivery (from 1.16
to 1.33). These improvements suggest that the implementation of Design Thinking encouraged more
fluent, accurate, and confident oral communication. Furthermore, slight but positive changes in
pronunciation, structure, and content show that students not only articulated their ideas more clearly
but also became more capable of organizing and enriching their discourse. This growth aligns with the
collaborative and iterative nature of DT, which provides multiple opportunities for students to express,
refine, and receive feedback on their ideas through real-world speaking tasks.
In contrast, the control group showed more modest gains in their post-test scores, especially in
fluency (from 0.98 to 1.05) and use of English (from 1.82 to 2.03), but with minimal or no improvement
in structure and content. This insight suggests that while traditional instruction may help maintain or
slightly improve speaking performance, it lacks the dynamic, student-centered engagement fostered by
DT. The overall total score increased in the intervention group (from 8.60 to 9.30), which was more
pronounced than that of the control group (from 8.50 to 8.90), supporting the statistical findings that
confirm a significant difference in outcomes. These results suggest that the Design Thinking approach
not only enhanced students’ speaking skills more effectively than traditional methods, but also helped
standardize performance across students, as shown by the reduced standard deviation from 1.4 in the
pre-test to 0.8 in the post-test, and the range in scores.
Table 2
Experimental and Control Group Descriptive Statistical Analysis
Note. M mean; SD Standard deviation; SE Standard error. The table presents descriptive statistics for both the experimental
and control groups. Results include measures of central tendency (mean, median, mode), variability (standard deviation,
sample variance, range), and distribution ( skewness, kurtosis) before and after the intervention
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for both the experimental and control groups within the
pre and post-test sections. In the experimental group, the mean score increased from 8.6 to 9.3, depicting
an improvement after the intervention. Similarly, the control group showed a slight increase in mean
Vol. 12/ Núm. 3 2025 pág. 3988
score from 8.5 to 8.9, although the increase was less pronounced. Additionally, both the media and
mode values in the experimental group rose significantly, with the mode reaching the highest score of
10 in the post-test, suggesting a higher students’ performance; however, the control group experienced
a lesser extent.
The standard deviation decreased from 1.4 to 0.8, and the sample variance dropped from 1.9 to
0.6 in the experimental group, indicating a more consistent performance among participants after the
treatment. Conversely, the control group showed almost the same variability in both phases.
In terms of distribution, the skewness in the experimental group moved from -2,301 to -1.272,
and kurtosis decreased by 4.860 points, suggesting a shift towards a more normal distribution. However,
in the control group, these values changed only marginally. Moreover, the minimum score in the
experimental group improved substantially by 3 points, implying a significant and positive effect on
lower-performing students as well as the range, which narrowed by 3 points, reinforcing the
consistency in improvement. The control group, in contrast, showed a minimal difference in range and
a slight decrease in the minimum score.
Table 3
F-Test Two – Sample for Variances
Note. Results of THE f-test for equality of variances. The test revealed no statistically significant difference in variances,
F(42,42)= 0.85, P= .303
An F-test for equality of variances was conducted to determine whether the assumption of equal
variances could be made for the post-test scores of the experimental and control groups. The result was
not statistically significant, f(42,42)= 0.85, p=.303, indicating that the variances were equal. Therefore,
a two-sample T-test assuming equal variances was used in the subsequent analysis
Table 4
T-test for Independent samples
Note. Results of an independent sample t-test assuming equal variances. A significant difference was found between the
groups, t (84) = 2.41, p= .018 (two-tailed), indicating that the experimental group outperformed the control group.
score from 8.5 to 8.9, although the increase was less pronounced. Additionally, both the media and
mode values in the experimental group rose significantly, with the mode reaching the highest score of
10 in the post-test, suggesting a higher students’ performance; however, the control group experienced
a lesser extent.
The standard deviation decreased from 1.4 to 0.8, and the sample variance dropped from 1.9 to
0.6 in the experimental group, indicating a more consistent performance among participants after the
treatment. Conversely, the control group showed almost the same variability in both phases.
In terms of distribution, the skewness in the experimental group moved from -2,301 to -1.272,
and kurtosis decreased by 4.860 points, suggesting a shift towards a more normal distribution. However,
in the control group, these values changed only marginally. Moreover, the minimum score in the
experimental group improved substantially by 3 points, implying a significant and positive effect on
lower-performing students as well as the range, which narrowed by 3 points, reinforcing the
consistency in improvement. The control group, in contrast, showed a minimal difference in range and
a slight decrease in the minimum score.
Table 3
F-Test Two – Sample for Variances
Note. Results of THE f-test for equality of variances. The test revealed no statistically significant difference in variances,
F(42,42)= 0.85, P= .303
An F-test for equality of variances was conducted to determine whether the assumption of equal
variances could be made for the post-test scores of the experimental and control groups. The result was
not statistically significant, f(42,42)= 0.85, p=.303, indicating that the variances were equal. Therefore,
a two-sample T-test assuming equal variances was used in the subsequent analysis
Table 4
T-test for Independent samples
Note. Results of an independent sample t-test assuming equal variances. A significant difference was found between the
groups, t (84) = 2.41, p= .018 (two-tailed), indicating that the experimental group outperformed the control group.
Vol. 12/ Núm. 3 2025 pág. 3989
An independent sample T-test assuming equal variances was conducted to compare post-test
scores in both groups; experimental group (m=9.3, SD= 0.77) and the control group (M= 8.9, SD=0.84).
The results indicated a statistically significant difference in performance, t (84) = 2.41, p= .018,
suggesting that the implementation of the Design thinking approach contributed significantly to
improving oral expression outcomes.
As part of the post-survey analysis in this study, key areas in terms of the DT stages are being
examined to evaluate the impact of the intervention. These include the frequency and context in which
students practice spoken English, as well as the specific oral practice strategies employed throughout
the project, and students' interests in this new innovative method. Closed-ended questions used a Likert
scale: Totally Agree (TA), Agree (A), Neutral (N), Disagree (D), and Totally Disagree (TD).
Additionally, the interview explores the holistic benefits perceived by participants in each stage of
design thinking, such as increased confidence, motivation, and engagement. Special attention is given
to students’ interest in innovative methodologies, particularly the integration of Design Thinking as a
pedagogical approach. Finally, the analysis considers the difficulties students face in oral expression,
offering insight into ongoing challenges and areas for instructional improvement
Table 5
Post survey results
Note: Elaborated by Mariscal, Castillo & Contreras (2025)
The survey revealed that students practiced oral English both inside and outside the classroom,
although classroom-based speaking was more frequent. Specifically, 75% of respondents (n = 27)
agreed or totally agreed that they practiced their oral English skills inside the classroom (Item 2),
compared to only 47% (n = 17) who reported doing so outside of it (Item 1). This suggests that the
structured environment of the DT-based sessions provided more consistent opportunities for students
to engage in oral communication. While informal or spontaneous speaking practice outside class was
An independent sample T-test assuming equal variances was conducted to compare post-test
scores in both groups; experimental group (m=9.3, SD= 0.77) and the control group (M= 8.9, SD=0.84).
The results indicated a statistically significant difference in performance, t (84) = 2.41, p= .018,
suggesting that the implementation of the Design thinking approach contributed significantly to
improving oral expression outcomes.
As part of the post-survey analysis in this study, key areas in terms of the DT stages are being
examined to evaluate the impact of the intervention. These include the frequency and context in which
students practice spoken English, as well as the specific oral practice strategies employed throughout
the project, and students' interests in this new innovative method. Closed-ended questions used a Likert
scale: Totally Agree (TA), Agree (A), Neutral (N), Disagree (D), and Totally Disagree (TD).
Additionally, the interview explores the holistic benefits perceived by participants in each stage of
design thinking, such as increased confidence, motivation, and engagement. Special attention is given
to students’ interest in innovative methodologies, particularly the integration of Design Thinking as a
pedagogical approach. Finally, the analysis considers the difficulties students face in oral expression,
offering insight into ongoing challenges and areas for instructional improvement
Table 5
Post survey results
Note: Elaborated by Mariscal, Castillo & Contreras (2025)
The survey revealed that students practiced oral English both inside and outside the classroom,
although classroom-based speaking was more frequent. Specifically, 75% of respondents (n = 27)
agreed or totally agreed that they practiced their oral English skills inside the classroom (Item 2),
compared to only 47% (n = 17) who reported doing so outside of it (Item 1). This suggests that the
structured environment of the DT-based sessions provided more consistent opportunities for students
to engage in oral communication. While informal or spontaneous speaking practice outside class was
Vol. 12/ Núm. 3 2025 pág. 3990
less common, the classroom activities designed during the project offered a meaningful context for
language use, aligned with the empathize and ideate stages of DT, where real-world problems and peer
collaboration are emphasized.
The results also highlight the effectiveness of the oral practice strategies embedded in the DT
process. Regarding the improvement of speaking skills, 69% of students (n = 25) agreed or totally
agreed that their oral English improved during the project (Item 3). In comparison, 75% (n = 27) found
the strategies used to be effective (Item 4). These outcomes reflect the interactive and student-centered
nature of DT, which allows for sustained oral practice through brainstorming, prototyping, and feedback
cycles. Additionally, 94% of students (n = 34) confirmed that they used methods promoting creativity
before selecting a solution (Item 6), and 83% (n = 30) noted that they engaged in team-based problem-
solving (Item 7). These findings align with Cevikbas and Kaiser (2022), who emphasized that DT
enhances interpersonal communication and teamwork. The fact that 32 students also acknowledged that
their teacher encouraged them to refine ideas based on feedback (Item 8) illustrates the iterative nature
of DT and its role in scaffolding language production.
Further, 31 students (Item 9) agreed or totally agreed that they experimented with different
solutions before choosing one, indicating their active engagement in the prototyping and testing phases.
These stages often required presenting ideas verbally, receiving peer or teacher input, and then refining
the spoken content. Such iterative, communicative experiences are key to promoting both fluency and
confidence, as supported by Almalki (2023). Moreover, the confidence to speak in public in English
saw modest improvement, with 58% (n = 21) indicating it became easier (Item 10), and a similar number
stating they could now express ideas better (Item 11). This aligns with Gregersen and Horwitz’s (2002)
findings that structured, low-stress speaking environments reduce anxiety, leading to better oral
performance.
Finally, students' interest in continuing with the DT methodology was evident. A significant
number expressed enthusiasm for future projects involving creative problem-solving and collaboration:
72% (n = 26) said they would like to participate again in similar mini-projects (Item 13), and 42% (n =
15) agreed or strongly agreed with continuing collaborative work through design (Item 12). Although
17 students remained neutral about continuing, none expressed strong disagreement, indicating
openness to the approach. This enthusiasm suggests that DT not only supports oral development but
also motivates students by offering a more dynamic and participatory learning experience. As the
abstract emphasizes, aligning university instruction with 21st-century skills requires approaches like
DT that develop not just language skills but also creativity, critical thinking, and collaboration—skills
highly valued in the labor market.
Qualitative data analysis
The table below comprises the students’ insights shared during the interview. The data was
organized and classified into six themes that covered their perceptions after the ten weeks of the Design
Thinking implementation. The themes were: (1) Fluency and Confidence, (2) Motivation and
less common, the classroom activities designed during the project offered a meaningful context for
language use, aligned with the empathize and ideate stages of DT, where real-world problems and peer
collaboration are emphasized.
The results also highlight the effectiveness of the oral practice strategies embedded in the DT
process. Regarding the improvement of speaking skills, 69% of students (n = 25) agreed or totally
agreed that their oral English improved during the project (Item 3). In comparison, 75% (n = 27) found
the strategies used to be effective (Item 4). These outcomes reflect the interactive and student-centered
nature of DT, which allows for sustained oral practice through brainstorming, prototyping, and feedback
cycles. Additionally, 94% of students (n = 34) confirmed that they used methods promoting creativity
before selecting a solution (Item 6), and 83% (n = 30) noted that they engaged in team-based problem-
solving (Item 7). These findings align with Cevikbas and Kaiser (2022), who emphasized that DT
enhances interpersonal communication and teamwork. The fact that 32 students also acknowledged that
their teacher encouraged them to refine ideas based on feedback (Item 8) illustrates the iterative nature
of DT and its role in scaffolding language production.
Further, 31 students (Item 9) agreed or totally agreed that they experimented with different
solutions before choosing one, indicating their active engagement in the prototyping and testing phases.
These stages often required presenting ideas verbally, receiving peer or teacher input, and then refining
the spoken content. Such iterative, communicative experiences are key to promoting both fluency and
confidence, as supported by Almalki (2023). Moreover, the confidence to speak in public in English
saw modest improvement, with 58% (n = 21) indicating it became easier (Item 10), and a similar number
stating they could now express ideas better (Item 11). This aligns with Gregersen and Horwitz’s (2002)
findings that structured, low-stress speaking environments reduce anxiety, leading to better oral
performance.
Finally, students' interest in continuing with the DT methodology was evident. A significant
number expressed enthusiasm for future projects involving creative problem-solving and collaboration:
72% (n = 26) said they would like to participate again in similar mini-projects (Item 13), and 42% (n =
15) agreed or strongly agreed with continuing collaborative work through design (Item 12). Although
17 students remained neutral about continuing, none expressed strong disagreement, indicating
openness to the approach. This enthusiasm suggests that DT not only supports oral development but
also motivates students by offering a more dynamic and participatory learning experience. As the
abstract emphasizes, aligning university instruction with 21st-century skills requires approaches like
DT that develop not just language skills but also creativity, critical thinking, and collaboration—skills
highly valued in the labor market.
Qualitative data analysis
The table below comprises the students’ insights shared during the interview. The data was
organized and classified into six themes that covered their perceptions after the ten weeks of the Design
Thinking implementation. The themes were: (1) Fluency and Confidence, (2) Motivation and
Vol. 12/ Núm. 3 2025 pág. 3991
engagement, (3) Cognitive structuring, (4) Feedback and Reflection, (5) skills developed beyond
English, and (6) Challenges and resolutions.
Table 6
Theme and Codification of interview transcripts
Theme Subtheme Code Representative quote (Spanish / English)
Fluency and
confidence
Overcoming
fear of
speaking
Confidence
through
repeated
practice
“At first, I felt embarrassed, but since we had
to present several times... I started speaking
with more confidence.”
Preparation
leads to self-
assurance.
Confidence
through
preparation
“Because I researched the topic myself, I felt
more prepared… that increased my
confidence.”
Using familiar
classroom
dynamics
Continuity
across courses
“I had already seen this kind of dynamic in the
ARP course…”
Motivation
and
engagement
Group
collaboration
Team-based
motivation
“I felt motivated by working in a group and
knowing I had to share my part.”
Authentic,
real-world
connection
Personal
relevance
“Talking about a real problem related to
learning English made me feel more connected
to the topic.”
Active
classroom
environment
Dynamic
learning
experience
“The interactive class activities and constant
feedback… gave me more confidence.”
Cognitive
structuring
Project stages:
Define and
Ideate
Organizing
and focusing
ideas
“In the Define stage, I learned to focus my
ideas… in Ideate, I practiced how to explain
solutions more clearly.”
Project stages:
Prototyping
Structuring
speech
logically
“I was able to organize my ideas better and
evaluate whether the proposed solution was
valid or not.”
Feedback and
reflection
Peer feedback Awareness of
habits and
delivery
“Some classmates pointed out that I spoke too
fast or used repetitive words.”
Instructor
feedback
Specific
language
improvement
“My English teacher also gave me specific
suggestions on how to improve my
pronunciation.”
engagement, (3) Cognitive structuring, (4) Feedback and Reflection, (5) skills developed beyond
English, and (6) Challenges and resolutions.
Table 6
Theme and Codification of interview transcripts
Theme Subtheme Code Representative quote (Spanish / English)
Fluency and
confidence
Overcoming
fear of
speaking
Confidence
through
repeated
practice
“At first, I felt embarrassed, but since we had
to present several times... I started speaking
with more confidence.”
Preparation
leads to self-
assurance.
Confidence
through
preparation
“Because I researched the topic myself, I felt
more prepared… that increased my
confidence.”
Using familiar
classroom
dynamics
Continuity
across courses
“I had already seen this kind of dynamic in the
ARP course…”
Motivation
and
engagement
Group
collaboration
Team-based
motivation
“I felt motivated by working in a group and
knowing I had to share my part.”
Authentic,
real-world
connection
Personal
relevance
“Talking about a real problem related to
learning English made me feel more connected
to the topic.”
Active
classroom
environment
Dynamic
learning
experience
“The interactive class activities and constant
feedback… gave me more confidence.”
Cognitive
structuring
Project stages:
Define and
Ideate
Organizing
and focusing
ideas
“In the Define stage, I learned to focus my
ideas… in Ideate, I practiced how to explain
solutions more clearly.”
Project stages:
Prototyping
Structuring
speech
logically
“I was able to organize my ideas better and
evaluate whether the proposed solution was
valid or not.”
Feedback and
reflection
Peer feedback Awareness of
habits and
delivery
“Some classmates pointed out that I spoke too
fast or used repetitive words.”
Instructor
feedback
Specific
language
improvement
“My English teacher also gave me specific
suggestions on how to improve my
pronunciation.”
Vol. 12/ Núm. 3 2025 pág. 3992
Skill
development
beyond
English
Collaboration
and listening
Teamwork
and empathy
“I learned to listen to different ideas,
collaborate better, and divide tasks more
effectively.”
Coping with
public
speaking
Stress
management
and resilience
“I learned how to better manage my nerves
during a presentation.”
Reading and
vocabulary
expansion
Academic
literacy
growth
“I strengthened my reading comprehension…
which was essential to prepare my
explanations.”
Thinking
under
pressure
Clarity in
expression
“I improved my ability to think clearly under
pressure and express ideas in a simple way.”
Challenges
and
resolution
Public
speaking
anxiety
Performance
anxiety
“The lack of self-confidence and the
nervousness I usually feel during presentations
at the beginning of the project.”
Team
coordination
and time
Group
logistics
“It was also difficult to coordinate with the
group… I overcame it by organizing ideas more
effectively.”
Note. The codification process was supported by artificial intelligence (AI) using ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2025), which assisted
the researcher in identifying themes, generating codes, and organizing representative quotes. The researcher made final
interpretations and thematic decisions following qualitative analysis standards
Table 6 portrays the interview data organized in the six main themes related to students’
experiences with a problem-solving oral presentation project. The coding process was AI-assisted using
Chatbot Data Analyst (OpenAI, 2025). Researchers retained full control over analytical decisions,
ensuring adherence to qualitative research standards.
Fluency and confidence, for instance, showed a consistent pattern. The interview stated that there
was a significant increase in both fluency and self-confidence when speaking. Along the same line,
participants emphasized that repeated opportunities to communicate, combined with peer interaction
and preparation, helped reduce initial anxiety, depicting how constant exposure to public speaking
contributed to the interpretation and understanding of oral expression. Additionally, it was expressed
that working with familiar content fostered confidence to articulate ideas.
Regarding the criterion of Motivation and Engagement, it was found that in terms of
engagement, “it was strongly impacted positively by collaborative dynamics and the authenticity of the
tasks. Learners frequently mentioned that Teamwork motivated them to actively participate using the
language with a specific purpose. Furthermore, the real-world context of the project topic made the
activity more meaningful and less intimidating than traditional classroom tasks, which increases the
willingness to speak and contribute.
Skill
development
beyond
English
Collaboration
and listening
Teamwork
and empathy
“I learned to listen to different ideas,
collaborate better, and divide tasks more
effectively.”
Coping with
public
speaking
Stress
management
and resilience
“I learned how to better manage my nerves
during a presentation.”
Reading and
vocabulary
expansion
Academic
literacy
growth
“I strengthened my reading comprehension…
which was essential to prepare my
explanations.”
Thinking
under
pressure
Clarity in
expression
“I improved my ability to think clearly under
pressure and express ideas in a simple way.”
Challenges
and
resolution
Public
speaking
anxiety
Performance
anxiety
“The lack of self-confidence and the
nervousness I usually feel during presentations
at the beginning of the project.”
Team
coordination
and time
Group
logistics
“It was also difficult to coordinate with the
group… I overcame it by organizing ideas more
effectively.”
Note. The codification process was supported by artificial intelligence (AI) using ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2025), which assisted
the researcher in identifying themes, generating codes, and organizing representative quotes. The researcher made final
interpretations and thematic decisions following qualitative analysis standards
Table 6 portrays the interview data organized in the six main themes related to students’
experiences with a problem-solving oral presentation project. The coding process was AI-assisted using
Chatbot Data Analyst (OpenAI, 2025). Researchers retained full control over analytical decisions,
ensuring adherence to qualitative research standards.
Fluency and confidence, for instance, showed a consistent pattern. The interview stated that there
was a significant increase in both fluency and self-confidence when speaking. Along the same line,
participants emphasized that repeated opportunities to communicate, combined with peer interaction
and preparation, helped reduce initial anxiety, depicting how constant exposure to public speaking
contributed to the interpretation and understanding of oral expression. Additionally, it was expressed
that working with familiar content fostered confidence to articulate ideas.
Regarding the criterion of Motivation and Engagement, it was found that in terms of
engagement, “it was strongly impacted positively by collaborative dynamics and the authenticity of the
tasks. Learners frequently mentioned that Teamwork motivated them to actively participate using the
language with a specific purpose. Furthermore, the real-world context of the project topic made the
activity more meaningful and less intimidating than traditional classroom tasks, which increases the
willingness to speak and contribute.
Vol. 12/ Núm. 3 2025 pág. 3993
Additionally, Cognitive structuring was emphasized by the design thinking stages embedded
in the tasks, playing a key role when helping students organize their thoughts and plan their speech.
Those applied stages acted as a cognitive scaffold, encouraging also to clarity, sequence and coherence
in students’ oral expression, which is also connected to feedback and reflection, wherein students
reported that both peer and teacher feedback were key in improving their performance, increasing
awareness of their pacing, clarity and word choice showing in this way, how a supportive learning
environment encourages reflective practices and continual oral development.
Beyond improvements in English speaking, learners also described gaining broader
competencies, as evidenced in Table 6, within the students' answers. These reflections, considered as a
metacognitive process, suggest that design thinking approach not only enhanced linguistic skills, but
also fostered critical competences in both academic and real-world context which also impact
significantly on how challenges when producing orally can be achieved from a more reflective pattern
rather than affecting emotion-cognition, becoming learners aware of their strengths and weaknesses and
what is more problem-solvers.
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are detailed based on the research questions considered for this study:
(a) To what extent does the implementation of the Design Thinking approach improve the oral
expression skills of EFL students compared to those who follow traditional instruction in a
public university setting?
The findings of this study revealed that the integration of the Design Thinking (DT) approach
significantly improved the oral expression skills of EFL students in the experimental group compared
to those in the control group. Quantitative analysis showed a statistically significant increase in speaking
performance (t(84) = 2.41, p = .018), with notable gains in fluency, delivery, and use of English, while
also reducing variability among learners as seen in the decreased standard deviation and range. This
improvement can be attributed to the iterative, student-centered nature of the DT methodology, which
provided meaningful opportunities for authentic speaking practice. By engaging students in real-world
problem-solving tasks and peer collaboration, the DT approach fostered increased motivation, reduced
anxiety, and more consistent speaking outcomes than traditional teacher-led instruction.
(b) What perceived benefits do EFL students identify after participating in a Design Thinking-
based speaking project?
Students reported multiple benefits from participating in the DT-based project, including
increased confidence, enhanced motivation, improved cognitive structuring, and metacognitive and
interpersonal development. Confidence grew through repeated presentations, better preparation, and
familiar classroom tasks, which reduced their fear of public speaking and allowed them to express
themselves more effectively. Motivation and engagement were boosted by collaborative work, real-
world problem solving, shared responsibilities, and personally relevant topics, making learning more
Additionally, Cognitive structuring was emphasized by the design thinking stages embedded
in the tasks, playing a key role when helping students organize their thoughts and plan their speech.
Those applied stages acted as a cognitive scaffold, encouraging also to clarity, sequence and coherence
in students’ oral expression, which is also connected to feedback and reflection, wherein students
reported that both peer and teacher feedback were key in improving their performance, increasing
awareness of their pacing, clarity and word choice showing in this way, how a supportive learning
environment encourages reflective practices and continual oral development.
Beyond improvements in English speaking, learners also described gaining broader
competencies, as evidenced in Table 6, within the students' answers. These reflections, considered as a
metacognitive process, suggest that design thinking approach not only enhanced linguistic skills, but
also fostered critical competences in both academic and real-world context which also impact
significantly on how challenges when producing orally can be achieved from a more reflective pattern
rather than affecting emotion-cognition, becoming learners aware of their strengths and weaknesses and
what is more problem-solvers.
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are detailed based on the research questions considered for this study:
(a) To what extent does the implementation of the Design Thinking approach improve the oral
expression skills of EFL students compared to those who follow traditional instruction in a
public university setting?
The findings of this study revealed that the integration of the Design Thinking (DT) approach
significantly improved the oral expression skills of EFL students in the experimental group compared
to those in the control group. Quantitative analysis showed a statistically significant increase in speaking
performance (t(84) = 2.41, p = .018), with notable gains in fluency, delivery, and use of English, while
also reducing variability among learners as seen in the decreased standard deviation and range. This
improvement can be attributed to the iterative, student-centered nature of the DT methodology, which
provided meaningful opportunities for authentic speaking practice. By engaging students in real-world
problem-solving tasks and peer collaboration, the DT approach fostered increased motivation, reduced
anxiety, and more consistent speaking outcomes than traditional teacher-led instruction.
(b) What perceived benefits do EFL students identify after participating in a Design Thinking-
based speaking project?
Students reported multiple benefits from participating in the DT-based project, including
increased confidence, enhanced motivation, improved cognitive structuring, and metacognitive and
interpersonal development. Confidence grew through repeated presentations, better preparation, and
familiar classroom tasks, which reduced their fear of public speaking and allowed them to express
themselves more effectively. Motivation and engagement were boosted by collaborative work, real-
world problem solving, shared responsibilities, and personally relevant topics, making learning more
Vol. 12/ Núm. 3 2025 pág. 3994
meaningful. Cognitive structuring improved as students learned to organize and articulate ideas clearly,
particularly during the Define and Ideate stages, which also enhanced planning and self-awareness.
Finally, metacognitive and interpersonal growth was fostered through giving and receiving feedback,
reflection on language use, teamwork, stress management, and critical thinking, contributing to their
overall academic and professional competence.
(c) What challenges do students face when integrating the Design Thinking approach into the
EFL curriculum at the university level?
Despite the positive impact of Design Thinking on students’ speaking skills, some challenges
emerged during implementation. Time management was initially complex, as students struggled to
complete all stages of the DT cycle within the course schedule, especially when grammar gaps or
limited vocabulary slowed progress. However, over time, they gradually organized themselves more
effectively. The stage that required the most time was the Test phase, where students implemented their
solutions at home and requested additional time to ensure proper execution. Irregular attendance of a
few students and varied levels of engagement occasionally disrupted collaborative planning, but
asynchronous communication through WhatsApp groups helped maintain group cohesion and
productivity. Finally, learners suggested that project topics be customized to reflect their academic
areas, which would foster more relevant language use and increase the real-world applicability of the
skills being developed. This approach could enhance relevance, motivation, and long-term language
retention, while continuing to support improvements in oral expression.
Limitations
A significant limitation in implementing the Design Thinking approach in the EFL courses was
adapting its five stages into the course program. This adaptation demanded careful design foresight,
and consistency to ensure that activities are coherent, feasible, and aligned with learning objectives.
Likewise, students needed time to respond to this approach, especially during the Test phase, which
was part of their asynchronous hours during the course. Still, thoughtful scheduling allowed students to
reflect, rehearse, and ultimately improve their speaking skills.
meaningful. Cognitive structuring improved as students learned to organize and articulate ideas clearly,
particularly during the Define and Ideate stages, which also enhanced planning and self-awareness.
Finally, metacognitive and interpersonal growth was fostered through giving and receiving feedback,
reflection on language use, teamwork, stress management, and critical thinking, contributing to their
overall academic and professional competence.
(c) What challenges do students face when integrating the Design Thinking approach into the
EFL curriculum at the university level?
Despite the positive impact of Design Thinking on students’ speaking skills, some challenges
emerged during implementation. Time management was initially complex, as students struggled to
complete all stages of the DT cycle within the course schedule, especially when grammar gaps or
limited vocabulary slowed progress. However, over time, they gradually organized themselves more
effectively. The stage that required the most time was the Test phase, where students implemented their
solutions at home and requested additional time to ensure proper execution. Irregular attendance of a
few students and varied levels of engagement occasionally disrupted collaborative planning, but
asynchronous communication through WhatsApp groups helped maintain group cohesion and
productivity. Finally, learners suggested that project topics be customized to reflect their academic
areas, which would foster more relevant language use and increase the real-world applicability of the
skills being developed. This approach could enhance relevance, motivation, and long-term language
retention, while continuing to support improvements in oral expression.
Limitations
A significant limitation in implementing the Design Thinking approach in the EFL courses was
adapting its five stages into the course program. This adaptation demanded careful design foresight,
and consistency to ensure that activities are coherent, feasible, and aligned with learning objectives.
Likewise, students needed time to respond to this approach, especially during the Test phase, which
was part of their asynchronous hours during the course. Still, thoughtful scheduling allowed students to
reflect, rehearse, and ultimately improve their speaking skills.
Vol. 12/ Núm. 3 2025 pág. 3995
REFERENCES
Almalki, A. (2023). The impact of integrating design thinking on EFL students’ oral performance.
International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 11(2), 45–52.
Alazeer, A. N. M., & Ahmed, Z. A. (2023). Students’ speaking anxiety in EFL classroom. International
Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 8(2), 100-107.
Baird, N., & Dilger, B. (2023) Supporting Discourse-based Interviews: Developing a Methodological
Resource for Researchers and Students Using Design Thinking. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM
International Conference on Design of Communication (pp. 229-234).
Batubara, K. B., Natalia, C. H., & Khairina, Y. (2024). Designing Innovative Learning Media for
Speaking Skill based on the 4Cs (Critical Thinking, Communication, Collaboration, and
Creativity). In Talenta Conference Series: Local Wisdom, Social, and Arts (LWSA) (Vol. 7, No.
2, pp. 142-147).
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (3rd ed.).
Pearson.
Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design: How Design Thinking Creates New Alternatives for Business
and Society. Harvard Business Press.
Cevikbas, M., & Kaiser, G. (2022). Enhancing student engagement through design thinking: A model
for interdisciplinary collaboration. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 43, 101013.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.101013
Cleminson, T., & Cowie, N. (2021). Using design thinking as an appr Using design thinking as an
approach to creative and communicative and communicative engagement in the English as a
Foreign Language (EFL) classroom. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 18,
63-81.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.
Durán, E., & García, K. (2021). Exploring EFL teaching and learning processes in two undergraduate
mandatory courses. Profile Issues in TeachersProfessional Development, 23(1), 145-160.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
Guskey, T. R. (2015). Pre-assessment: Promises and cautions. https://tguskey.com/wp-
content/uploads/Assessment-1-Pre-assessment-Promises-and-Cautions.pdf
Granda, G. A., Parra, J. A., Romero, E. R., & Vásquez, V. C. (2024). Design Thinking to Facilitate the
Development of TEFL Students' Competencies. Polo del Conocimiento, 9(12), 1345-1361.
Gregersen, T., & Horwitz, E. K. (2002). Language learning and perfectionism: Anxious and non-
anxious language learners’ reactions to their own oral performance. The Modern Language
Journal, 86(4), 562–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00161
REFERENCES
Almalki, A. (2023). The impact of integrating design thinking on EFL students’ oral performance.
International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 11(2), 45–52.
Alazeer, A. N. M., & Ahmed, Z. A. (2023). Students’ speaking anxiety in EFL classroom. International
Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 8(2), 100-107.
Baird, N., & Dilger, B. (2023) Supporting Discourse-based Interviews: Developing a Methodological
Resource for Researchers and Students Using Design Thinking. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM
International Conference on Design of Communication (pp. 229-234).
Batubara, K. B., Natalia, C. H., & Khairina, Y. (2024). Designing Innovative Learning Media for
Speaking Skill based on the 4Cs (Critical Thinking, Communication, Collaboration, and
Creativity). In Talenta Conference Series: Local Wisdom, Social, and Arts (LWSA) (Vol. 7, No.
2, pp. 142-147).
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (3rd ed.).
Pearson.
Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design: How Design Thinking Creates New Alternatives for Business
and Society. Harvard Business Press.
Cevikbas, M., & Kaiser, G. (2022). Enhancing student engagement through design thinking: A model
for interdisciplinary collaboration. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 43, 101013.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.101013
Cleminson, T., & Cowie, N. (2021). Using design thinking as an appr Using design thinking as an
approach to creative and communicative and communicative engagement in the English as a
Foreign Language (EFL) classroom. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 18,
63-81.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.
Durán, E., & García, K. (2021). Exploring EFL teaching and learning processes in two undergraduate
mandatory courses. Profile Issues in TeachersProfessional Development, 23(1), 145-160.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
Guskey, T. R. (2015). Pre-assessment: Promises and cautions. https://tguskey.com/wp-
content/uploads/Assessment-1-Pre-assessment-Promises-and-Cautions.pdf
Granda, G. A., Parra, J. A., Romero, E. R., & Vásquez, V. C. (2024). Design Thinking to Facilitate the
Development of TEFL Students' Competencies. Polo del Conocimiento, 9(12), 1345-1361.
Gregersen, T., & Horwitz, E. K. (2002). Language learning and perfectionism: Anxious and non-
anxious language learners’ reactions to their own oral performance. The Modern Language
Journal, 86(4), 562–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00161
Vol. 12/ Núm. 3 2025 pág. 3996
Guaman-Quintanilla, S., Chiluiza, K., Everaert, P., & Valcke, M. (2020, May). Mapping impact of
design thinking in teamwork, problem-solving and creativity. In Proceedings of the Design
Society: DESIGN Conference (Vol. 1, pp. 1715-1724). Cambridge University Press.
Jones, P. A. (2024). Design Thinking in Action: Fostering 21st-Century Skills Alongside Subject
Specific
Knowledge at Key Stage 3 in D&T. Design and Technology Education, 29 (2), 219-247.
Liedtka,, G. J., Rahimi, M., & Fathi, J. (2024). Enhancing EFL learners’ speaking skills, foreign
language enjoyment, and language-specific grit utilising the affordances of a MALL app: A
microgenetic perspective. Computers & Education, 214, 105015.
Li, R., Razali, F., Ismail, L., Muhamad, M. M., & Ma, X. (2024). Fostering autonomous learning in
oral English through role play: An exploration in course setting. International Journal of
Instruction, 17(3), 581-598.
Liedtka, J., Holden, M., & Eldridge, J. (2018). Experiencing design: The innovators’ journey. Columbia
Business School Publishing.
Papert, S. (1982). Mindstorms: children, computers and powerful ideas. London: Harvester Press.
Puccio, G. J., Mance, M., & Murdock, M. C. (2011). Creative leadership: Skills that drive change (2nd
ed.). SAGE Publications.
Rahmasari, B. S., Munir, A., & Nugroho, H. M. A. (2025). Fostering learner autonomy in EFL reading:
a study of strategy-based instruction at two Indonesian universities. Cogent Education, 12(1),
2477367.
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge University Press.
Salomone, R. C. (2022, February 1). The inequities of English use in global HE must be addressed.
Times igher Education
Schcolnik, M. Kol, S. and Abarbanel, J. (2006). Constructivism in Theory and in Practice. English
Teaching Forum. N. 4. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1107896.pdf
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
Temple, B., & Young, A. (2004). Qualitative research and translation dilemmas. Qualitative Research,
4(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794104044430
Guaman-Quintanilla, S., Chiluiza, K., Everaert, P., & Valcke, M. (2020, May). Mapping impact of
design thinking in teamwork, problem-solving and creativity. In Proceedings of the Design
Society: DESIGN Conference (Vol. 1, pp. 1715-1724). Cambridge University Press.
Jones, P. A. (2024). Design Thinking in Action: Fostering 21st-Century Skills Alongside Subject
Specific
Knowledge at Key Stage 3 in D&T. Design and Technology Education, 29 (2), 219-247.
Liedtka,, G. J., Rahimi, M., & Fathi, J. (2024). Enhancing EFL learners’ speaking skills, foreign
language enjoyment, and language-specific grit utilising the affordances of a MALL app: A
microgenetic perspective. Computers & Education, 214, 105015.
Li, R., Razali, F., Ismail, L., Muhamad, M. M., & Ma, X. (2024). Fostering autonomous learning in
oral English through role play: An exploration in course setting. International Journal of
Instruction, 17(3), 581-598.
Liedtka, J., Holden, M., & Eldridge, J. (2018). Experiencing design: The innovators’ journey. Columbia
Business School Publishing.
Papert, S. (1982). Mindstorms: children, computers and powerful ideas. London: Harvester Press.
Puccio, G. J., Mance, M., & Murdock, M. C. (2011). Creative leadership: Skills that drive change (2nd
ed.). SAGE Publications.
Rahmasari, B. S., Munir, A., & Nugroho, H. M. A. (2025). Fostering learner autonomy in EFL reading:
a study of strategy-based instruction at two Indonesian universities. Cogent Education, 12(1),
2477367.
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge University Press.
Salomone, R. C. (2022, February 1). The inequities of English use in global HE must be addressed.
Times igher Education
Schcolnik, M. Kol, S. and Abarbanel, J. (2006). Constructivism in Theory and in Practice. English
Teaching Forum. N. 4. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1107896.pdf
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
Temple, B., & Young, A. (2004). Qualitative research and translation dilemmas. Qualitative Research,
4(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794104044430