Integrating Design Thinking with Self-Determined Learning to Enhance Teacher Educator Competency and Capability in Nekemte college of Teacher Education

Integrating Design Thinking with Self-Determined Learning to Enhance Teacher Educator Competency and Capability in Nekemte college of Teacher Education | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Integrating Design Thinking with Self-Determined Learning to Enhance Teacher Educator Competency and Capability in Nekemte college of Teacher Education Aga Etana Abshale¹, Teklu Tafase Olkaba², Tariku Sime Gutu² This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9457821/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 7 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Despite Ethiopia’s policy commitment to competency-based and student-centered teacher education, a persistent gap remains between reform intentions and classroom practice. Globally, Design Thinking (DT) and Self-Determined Learning (SDL/heutagogy) have demonstrated potential for enhancing educators’ adaptive competencies and professional capability; however, their integrated application in resource-constrained contexts remains underexplored. Guided by a Design-Based Research (DBR) framework, this study investigated how the integration of DT and SDL can enhance teacher educator competency and capability at Nekemte College of Teacher Education (NCTE), Ethiopia. An exploratory sequential mixed-methods design was employed. Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews with senior administrators and a focus group with department heads to examine awareness, perceptions, and systemic barriers. These findings informed a quantitative survey administered to all 32 teacher educators at the institution. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically, while quantitative data were examined using descriptive statistics, with integration occurring at the interpretation stage. Findings reveal a pronounced awareness–practice gap: although formal familiarity with DT and SDL was limited, educators strongly valued their underlying principles. Major barriers included material scarcity, risk-averse institutional culture, and centralized governance structures. In response, the study developed two contextually grounded frameworks: the 3M Process Model (Molting–Molding–Modeling) and a STEAMSH interdisciplinary lens, emphasizing frugal innovation and cultural relevance. Consistent with international research, results suggest that DT provides a structured problem-solving process, while SDL supplies the motivational and metacognitive foundation necessary for sustained pedagogical innovation. The study contributes empirically grounded, context-sensitive models for strengthening teacher educator capability in Ethiopia and comparable Global South contexts, offering practical pathways for aligning policy ambitions with classroom practice. Design Thinking Self-Determined Learning Teacher Educator Capability Design-Based Research Educational Innovation Resource-Constrained Contexts Ethiopia Figures Figure 1 1. Introduction Ethiopia’s ambitious vision for educational transformation, articulated in the Education Development Roadmap (2018–2030), stands in stark contrast to the persistent systemic challenges that continue to impede quality and equity [1]. The historical reliance on rote memorization, profound disparities in resource distribution, and significant misalignment between teacher preparation and the demands for twenty-first-century skills have created a complex landscape where well-intentioned policies often fail to translate into meaningful classroom practice [2]. Recent analyses confirm that teacher education programs in Ethiopia struggle to develop the essential competencies—encompassing knowledge, attitudes, and practical skills—required for inclusive and effective teaching, revealing a critical gap between reform aspirations and on-the-ground realities [3]. Within this context, institutions such as Nekemte College of Teacher Education (NCTE) serve as crucial sites for change, yet they face intensified challenges including severe shortages of qualified educators, overcrowded classrooms, and superficial implementation of collaborative professional development models such as Lesson Study [4]. Globally, two pedagogical frameworks have emerged as particularly promising for cultivating the adaptive, creative, and agentive professionals needed in complex educational environments: Design Thinking (DT) and Self-Determined Learning (SDL or heutagogy). DT offers a human-centered, iterative methodology for problem-solving that reframes educators as designers of learning experiences, fostering empathy, creativity, and a bias toward action [5]. SDL, grounded in Self-Determination Theory, extends beyond traditional adult learning by emphasizing profound learner agency, metacognition, and the capability to navigate one’s own professional growth journey [6, 7]. While these approaches have demonstrated significant potential across various contexts, their application within resource-constrained systems such as Ethiopia’s remains critically underexplored and often siloed, lacking models for contextual integration [8]. This study addresses this pivotal gap by investigating the synergistic integration of DT and SDL within Ethiopian teacher education. It posits that DT provides the structured yet flexible process for tackling authentic pedagogical problems, while SDL supplies the essential motivational and metacognitive foundation for sustained, autonomous engagement in that process. The research is driven by three core questions: 1. What is the current awareness and perceived potential of Design Thinking and Self-Determined Learning among teacher educators at NCTE? 2. What systemic and contextual barriers impede the integration of DT and SDL into Ethiopian teacher education practices? 3. How can DT and SDL principles be effectively adapted and modeled to enhance the professional competency and capability of teacher educators in a resource-constrained setting? Employing an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design framed within Design-Based Research (DBR) principles, this study moves beyond mere diagnosis to propose and refine context-sensitive frameworks for innovation [9]. By doing so, it aims to contribute actionable, evidence-based strategies for sustainable educational transformation, ultimately seeking to empower a generation of teacher educators who are not only competent in contemporary pedagogies but also capable, self-determined agents of change within their own classrooms and institutions [10]. 2. Literature Review and Conceptual Framework 2.1 Design Thinking in Education: Cultivating a Designerly Mindset for Complex Challenges Design Thinking has evolved from its origins in product design to become a significant pedagogical paradigm, advocating for the concept of "teachers as designers" of learning environments and experiences [11]. Its core process—Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, Test—provides a scaffold for tackling ill-structured problems endemic to teaching. However, its greater value lies in fostering a designerly mindset characterized by empathy for learners, comfort with ambiguity, collaborative instinct, and a bias toward iterative action. In teacher education, DT shifts the focus from passive content reception to active knowledge construction through design. Educators engage in designing curricula, assessments, and inclusive learning activities, which inherently develops their adaptive expertise. Empirical studies involving pre-service science teachers highlight that effective DT implementation is closely tied to well-developed metacognitive and self-regulatory skills, suggesting a necessary synergy with approaches such as SDL [12]. However, significant barriers persist, including educators' unfamiliarity with the process, perceived time constraints, and institutional cultures that privilege predictable, transmission-based instruction over experimental, student-centered design work [8]. In resource-constrained contexts such as Ethiopia, these challenges are amplified, necessitating frugal innovations that prioritize mindset and process sophistication over material or technological abundance [13]. 2.2 Self-Determined Learning (Heutagogy): The Foundation for Professional Agency and Lifelong Growth Self-Determined Learning, or heutagogy, represents an evolution beyond pedagogy (teacher-directed) and andragogy (adult-directed) to a framework where the learner fully determines the path, goals, and outcomes of their learning [6]. Deeply informed by Self-Determination Theory (SDT), heutagogy posits that intrinsic motivation and optimal functioning flourish when the psychological needs for autonomy (control over one's learning), competence (mastery and effectiveness), and relatedness (connection with others) are supported [7]. For teacher educators, adopting a heutagogical approach presents a dual challenge: they must cultivate these principles within themselves as professionals and learn to model and facilitate them for their pre-service teachers. This develops professional capability—the ability to apply competence creatively in novel and complex situations—rather than merely mastering a static set of skills [10, 14]. The heutagogical educator engages in double-loop learning, constantly questioning underlying assumptions and values that inform their practice. The primary barrier in hierarchical educational systems is creating the space and institutional support for such autonomy, as traditional structures often reward conformity and compliance over self-direction and innovation [14]. 2.3 Synergistic Integration: DT as Process, SDL as Foundation The theoretical and practical integration of DT and SDL is both natural and powerful. DT provides a concrete, actionable process for engaging with the messy, real-world problems of education—a process that is inherently iterative and requires autonomy, risk-taking, and collaboration [5]. SDL provides the internal motivational engine and metacognitive framework that sustains engagement through the inevitable failures and iterations of the design process [7]. When a teacher educator uses DT to redesign a course module—for example, employing empathy interviews with students to define a learning barrier, ideating multiple solutions, and prototyping a new activity—they are simultaneously exercising key SDL attributes. They direct their own professional inquiry (autonomy), build and apply new design skills (competence), and potentially collaborate with colleagues (relatedness). This synergy directly targets the development of both competency (specific pedagogical design skills) and capability (the adaptive ability to tackle future, unforeseen challenges) [10]. This aligns with global research on effective professional development, which emphasizes collaboration, inquiry-based learning, and deep integration with daily practice [15]. 2.4 The Critical Role of Context: Intervention-Context Fit and Frugal Innovation A paramount lesson from implementation science is that interventions rarely succeed through simple replication; their effectiveness hinges on intervention-context fit [16]. A misalignment between an innovative pedagogical approach and the local realities of resources, culture, and policy can lead to poor fidelity, low acceptability, and ultimately, abandonment. Therefore, the uncritical importation of DT or SDL models from the Global North is a recipe for failure. Successful integration requires contextual hybridization. This study draws inspiration from Latin American higher education institutions, which have pioneered frugal DT adaptations using recycled materials for prototyping and free digital platforms for collaboration [13]. These examples demonstrate that innovation is not contingent on high-tech resources but on creativity, contextual relevance, and a focus on core principles. Similarly, understanding local knowledge systems, such as community-based problem-solving traditions, is essential. The proposed adaptation strategies must decouple the powerful mindsets of DT and SDL from expensive, foreign toolkits and recouple them with locally available resources and culturally resonant practices. 2.5 The Ethiopian Context: Diagnosing the Implementation Gap While Ethiopia has instituted policy frameworks such as Competency-Based Teacher Education (CBTE), a persistent implementation gap characterizes the system [17]. Studies indicate that teacher education often remains theoretical, with limited opportunity for the authentic, collaborative design work DT promotes [3]. Furthermore, professional development is frequently top-down and standardized, contradicting the core SDL principles of autonomy and self-direction [18]. Research on inclusive education in Ethiopia reveals that teacher training often fails to provide sufficient practical, hands-on experience, leading to inadequate preparedness and negative attitudes toward implementing innovative pedagogies [19]. This gap stems from a triad of interconnected factors: material constraints (lack of resources), institutional-cultural barriers (risk-averse climates, exam-driven accountability), and a lack of contextualized models [20, 21]. Teacher educators may recognize the value of student-centered methods but lack the "how-to" knowledge and the supportive ecosystem to implement them sustainably. This study posits that closing this gap requires more than training individuals; it demands systemic redesign that includes supportive frameworks for contextual adaptation, sustained professional learning communities, and leadership that enables experimentation [15]. Table 1 summarizes the conceptual integration of DT and SDL in teacher educator professional development. Table 1. Concise Conceptual Integration of Design Thinking (DT) and Self-Determined Learning (SDL) in Teacher Educator Development Concept DT Contribution SDL Contribution Integrated Outcome Problem-Solving Human-centered, iterative design cycle Self-directed inquiry and meta-cognition Adaptive Expertise: Creative, context-responsive problem diagnosis and solution design Motivation Engagement through meaningful, hands-on projects Autonomy, competence, and relatedness driving intrinsic motivation Sustained Innovation: Ongoing improvement driven by internal commitment Learning Process Collaborative, experimental iterations Learner-set goals, pathways, and evidence Double-Loop Learning: Designing reflective, agency-oriented learning experiences Resource Mindset Using constraints as creative catalysts Confidence in utilizing local resources and networks Contextual Ingenuity: Effective practice within real-world institutional limitations 3. Methodology 3.1 Overall Research Design and Philosophical Underpinnings This study employed an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design embedded within a Design-Based Research (DBR) orientation [9]. The DBR framework is uniquely suited for this inquiry as it is a pragmatic methodology focused on developing contextually relevant solutions to complex educational problems through iterative cycles of design, enactment, analysis, and redesign in real-world settings. DBR’s dual goals of advancing theoretical understanding (design principles) while improving local practice (the intervention) align perfectly with this study's aim to generate both actionable frameworks and generalizable knowledge about integrating DT and SDL. The research unfolded in two sequential, integrated phases: 1. Initial Qualitative Exploration: To deeply understand the context, challenges, language, and perceptions of key stakeholders at NCTE regarding pedagogical innovation. 2. Subsequent Quantitative Validation: To survey a larger sample of teacher educators to measure the prevalence and strength of themes identified in the qualitative phase, and to assess attitudes and perceived barriers at scale. This sequential approach ensured that the quantitative survey instrument was informed and contextualized by rich, local insights, enhancing its validity and relevance [9]. 3.2 Research Setting and Participant Selection The study was conducted at Nekemte College of Teacher Education (NCTE) in Oromia, Ethiopia—an institution representative of regional teacher colleges facing common challenges of resource limitations and reform implementation pressures [22]. A purposive sampling strategy was used to select information-rich participants: Phase 1 (Qualitative): Included in-depth, semi-structured interviews with two senior college administrators (Dean and Academic Vice-Dean) and one focus group discussion with five department stream heads. These participants were selected for their strategic oversight of curriculum, pedagogy, and institutional policy. Phase 2 (Quantitative): Involved a census-style survey administered to all 32 available teacher educators across various disciplines (Sciences, Languages, Social Sciences, Pedagogy) at NCTE. This approach sought to capture a broad range of perspectives from the college's academic staff. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Ethical approval was secured from the relevant institutional review board, with strict protocols to ensure anonymity, confidentiality, and the right to withdraw. 3.3 Data Collection Procedures and Instruments Qualitative Data Collection: Interview and focus group protocols were designed to explore: (a) familiarity with and understanding of DT, SDL, and related innovative pedagogies; (b) critical reflections on current pedagogical strengths and weaknesses in their programs; (c) identification of systemic, cultural, and material barriers to change; and (d) visions and suggestions for improving teacher education at NCTE. Sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and translated where necessary, with back-translation checks for accuracy. Quantitative Data Collection: A self-administered survey was developed based on the emergent themes from the qualitative analysis and the literature review. It utilized a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree) to measure: (a) perceived impact and value of DT-related competencies; (b) perceived impact and value of SDL-related principles; (c) severity of specific implementation challenges (e.g., resources, training, institutional culture); and (d) openness to low-cost, contextualized adaptation strategies. The survey was piloted with a small group of educators not involved in the study to ensure clarity, face validity, and cultural appropriateness. 3.4 Data Analysis and Integration Strategy Qualitative Analysis: Transcripts were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis following the six-phase approach of Braun and Clarke [23]. This involved familiarization with the data, generating initial codes, constructing themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and producing the report. The analysis sought to identify both semantic (explicit) and latent (underlying) themes regarding perceptions, barriers, and possibilities. Quantitative Analysis: Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics (frequencies, means, and standard deviations) with IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 26). This provided a snapshot of the distribution of attitudes and perceptions across the wider educator body. Mixed-Methods Integration: Integration occurred at the interpretation stage, where qualitative themes and quantitative trends were juxtaposed and woven together to build a coherent, validated understanding [24]. We specifically looked for: convergence (where both data strands supported the same finding), complementarity (where qualitative insights explained or elaborated on quantitative results), and discordance (where findings diverged, requiring deeper investigation). This integrative analysis directly informed the development of the contextualized frameworks presented in the findings. 3.5 Research Rigor and Trustworthiness To enhance the rigor and trustworthiness of the study, multiple strategies were employed across design, data collection, and analysis stages. Credibility was strengthened through methodological triangulation and the use of an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design, whereby qualitative findings from interviews and focus group discussions informed the development of the quantitative survey instrument. This sequencing ensured that survey items were grounded in participants’ lived experiences and contextual realities, supporting the validity of interpretations. Integration of qualitative and quantitative findings at the interpretation stage further enabled convergence and complementarity across data sources. Dependability was supported through transparent and systematic research procedures. Detailed documentation of sampling strategies, data collection protocols, analytical steps, and decision points was maintained throughout the study. The use of established analytical frameworks—reflexive thematic analysis for qualitative data and descriptive statistical analysis for quantitative data—enhanced procedural consistency and replicability. Ethical rigor was ensured through formal ethical approval from the relevant institutional review board. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection, participation was voluntary, and confidentiality and anonymity were strictly maintained. These measures collectively strengthen the methodological integrity of the study and support confidence in the credibility and trustworthiness of the findings. 4. Results and Discussion: Integrated Findings and Theoretical Synthesis 4.1 Awareness Gap and the Persistence of Tradition (Addressing RQ1) Teacher educators demonstrated very limited formal familiarity with the terminologies of "Design Thinking" and "Self-Determined Learning." However, when the underlying principles were explained, they perceived them as highly valuable and aligned with stated national goals for competency-based, student-centered education. Administrators and stream heads uniformly indicated that terms such as "Design Thinking" were new. One administrator noted, "We hear about active learning in workshops, but this 'Design Thinking' is a new language for us." Yet, during the focus group, when the DT process was described as a structured way to understand students' needs and creatively solve classroom problems, participants immediately engaged, providing local examples of similar, if less systematic, efforts. Survey results showed strong agreement that student-centered methods improve engagement (M = 4.22, SD = 0.71) and problem-solving skills (M = 3.78, SD = 0.85). However, self-reported frequent use of such methods was significantly lower (M = 3.12, SD = 1.02), confirming a value-practice gap. This "awareness gap" constitutes a critical initial barrier to innovation, as identified in other contexts [8]. The persistence of teacher-centered pedagogy is not merely a habit but is embedded in deep-seated cultural and institutional norms, as well as in the structure of assessment systems that often reward rote recall [21]. The recognition of potential, coupled with a lack of practical "how-to" knowledge, creates a state of frustrated readiness. This underscores the necessity for the initial "Molting" phase in our proposed 3M Framework—a deliberate, supported process of unlearning entrenched practices, building a new, shared vocabulary of innovation, and critically examining the assumptions underlying traditional teaching [19]. 4.2 Systemic Barriers: A Triad of Material, Cultural, and Governance Constraints (Addressing RQ2) The implementation of DT and SDL is constrained by a powerful, interconnected triad of barriers: acute resource scarcity, deeply ingrained cultural-institutional resistance, and fragmented or top-down governance. Participants consistently highlighted material deficits: "insufficient teaching aids," "overcrowded classrooms," and "almost no digital tools for interactive work." More profoundly, cultural barriers were emphasized. An administrator stated, "There is a fear... changing methods might risk exam results. The system rewards safe, predictable teaching, not creativity." Governance was described as hierarchical, with curriculum and training decisions made centrally, leaving little room for educator-led innovation or adaptation. Survey respondents rated "Inadequate material resources" (M = 3.81, SD = 0.88) and "Resistance to changing traditional teaching methods from colleagues/leadership" (M = 3.75, SD = 0.92) as the most severe barriers. "Lack of training in new methods" (M = 3.60, SD = 0.95) was also rated highly. These findings resonate with broader analyses of educational challenges in Ethiopia and similar contexts [2, 20]. The barrier is socio-technical; it involves the interplay of tools, practices, and deeply held beliefs. A culture of risk-aversion, reinforced by high-stakes examinations, systematically stifles the experimental "test and learn" ethos essential to DT [8]. This creates a paradox of innovation: a system that calls for reform simultaneously punishes the deviations and experimentation required to achieve it. Insights from implementation science highlight that poor intervention-context fit is a primary reason innovations fail [16]. Therefore, successful integration cannot simply "add on" DT/SDL training; it must involve strategies to adapt the core principles to this constrained context, a process central to the "Molding" phase [13]. 4.3 Proposing Contextualized Models: The 3M Framework and STEAMSH Interdisciplinary Lens (Addressing RQ3) Data from both phases converged on the necessity for a structured, culturally grounded, and scalable model for integration. In direct response, this study developed and proposes two intertwined frameworks: the 3M Process Model and the STEAMSH Interdisciplinary Lens. The 3M Framework: A Cyclical Model for Institutional Change This is an iterative, phased model for supporting transformative professional learning: 1. Molting: Shedding outdated practices. Activities include critical reflection workshops, immersive experiences in DT/SDL basics, and co-creating a collective vision for change. This phase aims to build psychological safety and a shared language [19]. 2. Molding: Actively shaping new competencies and practices. This involves collaborative design sprints to create lesson prototypes, forming DT learning circles or Teacher Design Teams (TDTs), and implementing and testing frugal adaptations. This phase is where the core integration of DT process and SDL agency occurs through hands-on projects [15]. 3. Modeling: Demonstrating and disseminating success. Educator-practitioners pilot refined prototypes in their courses, conduct classroom action research, and become mentors for peers, thereby scaling the innovation organically and building internal leadership. This framework operationalizes DBR principles and transformative learning theory, providing a manageable pathway that reduces overwhelm by focusing on achievable stages. The STEAMSH Framework: Ensuring Cultural and Interdisciplinary Relevance Moving beyond the Western STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) model, STEAMSH explicitly integrates Aesthetics, Social Studies, and Humanities with science and technology [25]. For Ethiopia, this means: - Connecting physics principles to indigenous engineering (e.g., the design of traditional housing) - Exploring ecological change through both environmental science and Oromo ecological knowledge ( Aadaa ). - Using local history, art, and social narratives as contexts for design challenges This framework ensures innovation is not a foreign import but is culturally grounded and interdisciplinary, increasing relevance and sustainability. It aligns with global calls for education that connects to students' lives and local knowledge systems. The 3M and STEAMSH frameworks together address the core implementation challenge of fit [16]. The 3M Framework addresses the process of change at the individual and institutional level, while STEAMSH addresses the content and context of that change. This mirrors findings that successful professional development requires both a supportive process (such as TDTs) and content that is relevant to teachers' immediate contexts [15]. By promoting frugal innovation—using local, low-cost materials for prototyping—the model directly confronts the resource barrier, turning constraints into catalysts for creativity, as observed in Latin American adaptations [13]. Table 2 shows adaptable DT strategies in resource-constrained environments. Table 2. Low-Cost Design Thinking Adaptation Strategies for the Ethiopian Context Contextual Barrier Low-Cost DT Strategy Application in NCTE (Molding Phase) Lack of prototyping materials Use locally available or recycled materials for frugal prototyping Create classroom models or teaching aids using clay, cardboard, fabric scraps, and bottle caps Limited digital connectivity Utilize analog DT tools and shared physical work spaces Deploy printed empathy maps and ideation canvases; set up a “project wall” for team collaboration Shortage of expert trainers Peer-led DT/SDL ambassador groups and collaborative design teams Train a small cohort to lead learning circles and co-design curriculum innovations Rigid curriculum and time constraints Use micro-projects and competency badges Embed 2-week DT challenges within existing courses and reward progress with simple badge systems Figure 1 Conceptual integration of Design Thinking (DT) and Self-Determined Learning (SDL) for enhancing teacher educator competency and professional capability in resource-constrained contexts. The model situates DT as a structured problem-solving process and SDL as the motivational and metacognitive foundation, operationalized through the 3M Process Model (Molting–Molding–Modeling) and contextualized using a STEAMSH interdisciplinary lens. 5. Conclusion, Implications, and Future Directions 5.1 Summary of Contributions This study confirms the existence of a significant potential-recognition gap in Ethiopian teacher education: educators perceive the value of innovative, student-centered pedagogies aligned with national reforms but operate within a system that constrains their implementation through material, cultural, and governance barriers [3, 20]. The primary contribution is the proposition of two intertwined, context-sensitive frameworks designed to bridge this gap: 1. The 3M Process Model (Molting-Molding-Modeling): A phased, iterative pathway for institutional and individual change that balances structure with the autonomy central to SDL. 2. The STEAMSH Interdisciplinary Lens: A framework for ensuring pedagogical innovation is culturally grounded and relevant, moving beyond imported models to foster localized, meaningful design challenges [25]. These frameworks explicitly link the development of individual educator competency and capability with a supportive institutional change process, all while prioritizing frugality and cultural relevance [10, 13]. They exemplify how global pedagogical insights can be hybridized with local knowledge and realities—a form of "glocalization" essential for sustainable and equitable educational reform. 5.2 Implications for Policy, Leadership, and Practice For College Leadership (NCTE and Peers): - Initiate a formal "Molting" process through a series of vision-building workshops that include administrators, stream heads, and educators [19]. - Establish a small "Innovation Micro-Grant" fund to support faculty-led, low-cost prototype projects emerging from the "Molding" phase. - Formally institute Teacher Design Teams (TDTs) as core professional development structures, tasked with collaboratively developing one STEAMSH-based curriculum module per semester [15]. For Regional/National Policymakers: - Revise teacher educator professional development standards to include facilitation skills for DT and heutagogical (SDL) approaches [14]. - Incentivize institutional innovation through recognition, awards, or preferential funding for colleges that demonstrate effective, contextually-adapted pedagogical reforms. - Support the creation of a national digital repository for sharing frugal teaching resources, adaptation strategies, and case studies from successful TDTs [13]. For Teacher Educators: - Begin with small, personal experiments: incorporate one element of DT (e.g., conducting empathy interviews with students before redesigning an assignment) or SDL (e.g., offering choice in how students demonstrate learning) into a single course [5, 7]. - Seek out or form a peer reflection group to share experiences, challenges, and successes, building a community of practice around innovation. 5.3 Limitations and Avenues for Future Research This study is limited by its focus on a single institution and the relatively small scale of its quantitative sample, which cautions against broad generalization [9]. The proposed 3M and STEAMSH frameworks, while grounded in empirical data and theory, require rigorous empirical testing through full DBR cycles. Future research should: 1. Implement and longitudinally study the 3M Model across multiple teacher colleges in diverse Ethiopian regions to assess its scalability, adaptability, and impact on both educator practices and, ultimately, student learning outcomes. 2. Conduct detailed ethnographic case studies of Teacher Design Teams engaged in STEAMSH curriculum design to understand the micro-processes of collaboration, conflict, creativity, and contextual hybridization that occur. 3. Investigate the specific policy levers, funding models, and leadership practices that most effectively create an enabling environment for pedagogical innovation in resource-constrained public institutions, drawing from implementation science frameworks [16]. 4. Explore the direct relationship between educators' self-regulated learning capacities and their effectiveness in implementing design thinking, building on international findings [12], to tailor support mechanisms within the "Molding" phase. 5.4 Concluding Reflection Transforming Ethiopian teacher education—and by extension, its entire school system—requires moving beyond the importation of foreign models or the one-off training of individuals in new techniques. It demands a systemic redesign that empowers educators as agentic designers and self-determined learners. The integration of Design Thinking and Self-Determined Learning, guided by the contextualizing principles of the 3M Process Model and the STEAMSH Interdisciplinary Lens, offers a coherent and promising pathway [5, 6, 13, 25]. This approach seeks to cultivate the adaptive, creative, and resilient professionals essential for realizing the transformative promise of Ethiopia's educational future, turning systemic constraints into catalysts for sustainable, home-grown innovation. Declarations Author Contribution Author ContributionsAEA conceptualized the study, conducted data collection and analysis, and drafted the manuscript. TTO contributed to methodological design, theoretical framing, and critical manuscript review. TSG provided academic supervision, conceptual refinement, and editorial guidance. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript. Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Jimma University (Protocol Number: JU-IRB-032/2024) in accordance with the guidelines and regulations set forth by the Ethiopian National Research Ethics Review Guideline (5th edition, 2019). Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection. Participation was voluntary, and confidentiality and anonymity were ensured throughout the study. Consent for Publication Not applicable. This manuscript does not contain any individual person’s data in any form (including individual details, images, or videos). Data Availability Statement The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to participant confidentiality but are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Third-Party Material No. All material (including text, tables, and the conceptual framework figure) is owned by the authors, and no permissions are required for reproduction under a CC BY open access license. References Ministry of Education (MoE). Education Development Roadmap (2018–2030). Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia; 2018. Dawit M, Tebeje A. Challenges of implementing the Ethiopian Education Development Roadmap: A review of funding, conflict, and policy stability. J Ethiop Educ. 2024;15(2):45–67. Yisak A, Tadesse T. Competence-based teacher education and professional learning in Ethiopia. Int J Teach Educ. 2020;9(2):33–49. Temesgen Y, Woldu A. The practices and challenges of teacher educators' professional development through lesson study. Ethiop J Educ Sci. 2018;13(1):1–20. Brown T. Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York: HarperCollins; 2009. Hase S, Kenyon C. From andragogy to heutagogy. UltiBASE Articles. 2000;5(3):1–10. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York: Guilford Press; 2020. Gibbons S. Barriers to implementing design thinking in teacher education. J Educ Change. 2020;21(3):211–29. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2017. Stephenson J. The concept of capability and its importance in higher education. Stud High Educ. 1998;23(2):127–39. Henriksen D, Richardson C, Mehta R. Design thinking: A creative approach to educational problems of practice. Think Skills Creat. 2017;26:140–53. Vogrinc J, Kalin J. Mapping the relationships between self-directed learning and design thinking in pre-service science and technology teachers. Sustainability. 2022;14(14):8626. Scheer A, Noweski C, Meinel C. Design thinking in education: Low-cost adaptations for global classrooms. Cham: Springer; 2021. Blaschke LM. Heutagogy and lifelong learning: A review of heutagogical practice and self-determined learning. Int Rev Res Open Distrib Learn. 2012;13(1):56–71.15. Darling-Hammond L, Hyler ME, Gardner M. Effective teacher professional development. Palo Alto: Learning Policy Institute; 2017. Eisman AB, Gwon H, Heinze JE. A mixed methods investigation of implementation determinants for an evidence-based intervention in schools. Implement Res Pract. 2022;3:1–15. Berhanemeskel T, Fisseha M. Policy reforms and unresolved educational challenges in Ethiopia. Bahir Dar J Educ. 2024;24(1):1–20. Fekede T, Tynjala P. Exploring teachers' motivation for teaching and professional development in Ethiopia. J Stud Educ. 2015;5(2):169–86. Aragón OR, Dovidio JF, Graham MJ. Colorblind and multicultural ideologies are associated with faculty adoption of inclusive teaching practices. J Divers High Educ. 2017;10(3):201–15. Kamanga J. Educational challenges in Ethiopia. Berlin: Brokenchalk; 2020. Solomon T. Challenges and opportunities in the Ethiopian education system. J Ethiop Stud. 2021;58(3):234–49. Oromia Education Bureau (OEB). Oromia Regional State perspective plan for universal primary education. Addis Ababa: OEB; 2005. Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic analysis: A practical guide. London: Sage Publications; 2022. Parrish CW, Williams DS. A mixed-methods research design to advance inclusive and equitable teaching in higher education. Innov High Educ. 2024;49(5):1105–25. Yakman G. STEAM education: An overview of creating a model of integrative education. In: PATT-19 Conference Proceedings; 2008. p. 335–58. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviewers agreed at journal 23 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 22 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 09 May, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 07 May, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 29 Apr, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 27 Apr, 2026 First submitted to journal 27 Apr, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9457821","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":641495357,"identity":"762c4480-60d3-42fb-945a-5810708a7ee0","order_by":0,"name":"Aga Etana Abshale¹","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Jimma University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Aga","middleName":"Etana","lastName":"Abshale¹","suffix":""},{"id":641495359,"identity":"f2b64dff-0962-42e1-ad5d-de31d4609e37","order_by":1,"name":"Teklu Tafase Olkaba²","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Jimma University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Teklu","middleName":"Tafase","lastName":"Olkaba²","suffix":""},{"id":641495361,"identity":"438d15dc-2a17-4507-9f4e-512cb6cee9a0","order_by":2,"name":"Tariku Sime Gutu²","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Jimma University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tariku","middleName":"Sime","lastName":"Gutu²","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-04-18 19:53:17","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9457821/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9457821/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":109486489,"identity":"5ab3bc21-a95b-4df5-bf37-9e55289f52bf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-18 16:25:47","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":79074,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eConceptual Integration of DT and SDL]\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9457821/v1/658b2283b27f4e1f111c50d8.png"},{"id":109486496,"identity":"d74808e8-36c8-4ade-8ef2-66ecfcc65592","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-18 16:25:57","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":246206,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9457821/v1/b21cb459-18ba-4fb5-849b-6c5081b0bd27.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Integrating Design Thinking with Self-Determined Learning to Enhance Teacher Educator Competency and Capability in Nekemte college of Teacher Education","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eEthiopia\u0026rsquo;s ambitious vision for educational transformation, articulated in the Education Development Roadmap (2018\u0026ndash;2030), stands in stark contrast to the persistent systemic challenges that continue to impede quality and equity [1]. The historical reliance on rote memorization, profound disparities in resource distribution, and significant misalignment between teacher preparation and the demands for twenty-first-century skills have created a complex landscape where well-intentioned policies often fail to translate into meaningful classroom practice [2]. Recent analyses confirm that teacher education programs in Ethiopia struggle to develop the essential competencies\u0026mdash;encompassing knowledge, attitudes, and practical skills\u0026mdash;required for inclusive and effective teaching, revealing a critical gap between reform aspirations and on-the-ground realities [3]. Within this context, institutions such as Nekemte College of Teacher Education (NCTE) serve as crucial sites for change, yet they face intensified challenges including severe shortages of qualified educators, overcrowded classrooms, and superficial implementation of collaborative professional development models such as Lesson Study [4].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGlobally, two pedagogical frameworks have emerged as particularly promising for cultivating the adaptive, creative, and agentive professionals needed in complex educational environments: Design Thinking (DT) and Self-Determined Learning (SDL or heutagogy). DT offers a human-centered, iterative methodology for problem-solving that reframes educators as designers of learning experiences, fostering empathy, creativity, and a bias toward action [5]. SDL, grounded in Self-Determination Theory, extends beyond traditional adult learning by emphasizing profound learner agency, metacognition, and the capability to navigate one\u0026rsquo;s own professional growth journey [6, 7]. While these approaches have demonstrated significant potential across various contexts, their application within resource-constrained systems such as Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s remains critically underexplored and often siloed, lacking models for contextual integration [8].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study addresses this pivotal gap by investigating the synergistic integration of DT and SDL within Ethiopian teacher education. It posits that DT provides the structured yet flexible process for tackling authentic pedagogical problems, while SDL supplies the essential motivational and metacognitive foundation for sustained, autonomous engagement in that process. The research is driven by three core questions:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. What is the current awareness and perceived potential of Design Thinking and Self-Determined Learning among teacher educators at NCTE?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. What systemic and contextual barriers impede the integration of DT and SDL into Ethiopian teacher education practices?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. How can DT and SDL principles be effectively adapted and modeled to enhance the professional competency and capability of teacher educators in a resource-constrained setting?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmploying an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design framed within Design-Based Research (DBR) principles, this study moves beyond mere diagnosis to propose and refine context-sensitive frameworks for innovation [9]. By doing so, it aims to contribute actionable, evidence-based strategies for sustainable educational transformation, ultimately seeking to empower a generation of teacher educators who are not only competent in contemporary pedagogies but also capable, self-determined agents of change within their own classrooms and institutions [10].\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Literature Review and Conceptual Framework","content":"\u003cp\u003e2.1 Design Thinking in Education: Cultivating a Designerly Mindset for Complex Challenges\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDesign Thinking has evolved from its origins in product design to become a significant pedagogical paradigm, advocating for the concept of \u0026quot;teachers as designers\u0026quot; of learning environments and experiences [11]. Its core process\u0026mdash;Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, Test\u0026mdash;provides a scaffold for tackling ill-structured problems endemic to teaching. However, its greater value lies in fostering a designerly mindset characterized by empathy for learners, comfort with ambiguity, collaborative instinct, and a bias toward iterative action.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn teacher education, DT shifts the focus from passive content reception to active knowledge construction through design. Educators engage in designing curricula, assessments, and inclusive learning activities, which inherently develops their adaptive expertise. Empirical studies involving pre-service science teachers highlight that effective DT implementation is closely tied to well-developed metacognitive and self-regulatory skills, suggesting a necessary synergy with approaches such as SDL [12]. However, significant barriers persist, including educators\u0026apos; unfamiliarity with the process, perceived time constraints, and institutional cultures that privilege predictable, transmission-based instruction over experimental, student-centered design work [8]. In resource-constrained contexts such as Ethiopia, these challenges are amplified, necessitating frugal innovations that prioritize mindset and process sophistication over material or technological abundance [13].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;2.2 Self-Determined Learning (Heutagogy): The Foundation for Professional Agency and Lifelong Growth\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSelf-Determined Learning, or heutagogy, represents an evolution beyond pedagogy (teacher-directed) and andragogy (adult-directed) to a framework where the learner fully determines the path, goals, and outcomes of their learning [6]. Deeply informed by Self-Determination Theory (SDT), heutagogy posits that intrinsic motivation and optimal functioning flourish when the psychological needs for autonomy (control over one\u0026apos;s learning), competence (mastery and effectiveness), and relatedness (connection with others) are supported [7].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor teacher educators, adopting a heutagogical approach presents a dual challenge: they must cultivate these principles within themselves as professionals and learn to model and facilitate them for their pre-service teachers. This develops professional capability\u0026mdash;the ability to apply competence creatively in novel and complex situations\u0026mdash;rather than merely mastering a static set of skills [10, 14]. The heutagogical educator engages in double-loop learning, constantly questioning underlying assumptions and values that inform their practice. The primary barrier in hierarchical educational systems is creating the space and institutional support for such autonomy, as traditional structures often reward conformity and compliance over self-direction and innovation [14].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;2.3 Synergistic Integration: DT as Process, SDL as Foundation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe theoretical and practical integration of DT and SDL is both natural and powerful. DT provides a concrete, actionable process for engaging with the messy, real-world problems of education\u0026mdash;a process that is inherently iterative and requires autonomy, risk-taking, and collaboration [5]. SDL provides the internal motivational engine and metacognitive framework that sustains engagement through the inevitable failures and iterations of the design process [7].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen a teacher educator uses DT to redesign a course module\u0026mdash;for example, employing empathy interviews with students to define a learning barrier, ideating multiple solutions, and prototyping a new activity\u0026mdash;they are simultaneously exercising key SDL attributes. They direct their own professional inquiry (autonomy), build and apply new design skills (competence), and potentially collaborate with colleagues (relatedness). This synergy directly targets the development of both competency (specific pedagogical design skills) and capability (the adaptive ability to tackle future, unforeseen challenges) [10]. This aligns with global research on effective professional development, which emphasizes collaboration, inquiry-based learning, and deep integration with daily practice [15].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;2.4 The Critical Role of Context: Intervention-Context Fit and Frugal Innovation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA paramount lesson from implementation science is that interventions rarely succeed through simple replication; their effectiveness hinges on intervention-context fit [16]. A misalignment between an innovative pedagogical approach and the local realities of resources, culture, and policy can lead to poor fidelity, low acceptability, and ultimately, abandonment. Therefore, the uncritical importation of DT or SDL models from the Global North is a recipe for failure.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessful integration requires contextual hybridization. This study draws inspiration from Latin American higher education institutions, which have pioneered frugal DT adaptations using recycled materials for prototyping and free digital platforms for collaboration [13]. These examples demonstrate that innovation is not contingent on high-tech resources but on creativity, contextual relevance, and a focus on core principles. Similarly, understanding local knowledge systems, such as community-based problem-solving traditions, is essential. The proposed adaptation strategies must decouple the powerful mindsets of DT and SDL from expensive, foreign toolkits and recouple them with locally available resources and culturally resonant practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;2.5 The Ethiopian Context: Diagnosing the Implementation Gap\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWhile Ethiopia has instituted policy frameworks such as Competency-Based Teacher Education (CBTE), a persistent implementation gap characterizes the system [17]. Studies indicate that teacher education often remains theoretical, with limited opportunity for the authentic, collaborative design work DT promotes [3]. Furthermore, professional development is frequently top-down and standardized, contradicting the core SDL principles of autonomy and self-direction [18]. Research on inclusive education in Ethiopia reveals that teacher training often fails to provide sufficient practical, hands-on experience, leading to inadequate preparedness and negative attitudes toward implementing innovative pedagogies [19].\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThis gap stems from a triad of interconnected factors: material constraints (lack of resources), institutional-cultural barriers (risk-averse climates, exam-driven accountability), and a lack of contextualized models [20, 21]. Teacher educators may recognize the value of student-centered methods but lack the \u0026quot;how-to\u0026quot; knowledge and the supportive ecosystem to implement them sustainably. This study posits that closing this gap requires more than training individuals; it demands systemic redesign that includes supportive frameworks for contextual adaptation, sustained professional learning communities, and leadership that enables experimentation [15]. Table 1 summarizes the conceptual integration of DT and SDL in teacher educator professional development.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1. Concise Conceptual Integration of Design Thinking (DT) and Self-Determined Learning (SDL) in Teacher Educator Development\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"626\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConcept\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 152px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDT Contribution\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 176px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSDL Contribution\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 206px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIntegrated Outcome\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProblem-Solving\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 152px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHuman-centered, iterative design cycle\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 176px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelf-directed inquiry and meta-cognition\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 206px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdaptive Expertise:\u003c/strong\u003e Creative, context-responsive problem diagnosis and solution design\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMotivation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 152px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEngagement through meaningful, hands-on projects\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 176px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAutonomy, competence, and relatedness driving intrinsic motivation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 206px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSustained Innovation:\u003c/strong\u003e Ongoing improvement driven by internal commitment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLearning Process\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 152px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCollaborative, experimental iterations\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 176px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLearner-set goals, pathways, and evidence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 206px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDouble-Loop Learning:\u003c/strong\u003e Designing reflective, agency-oriented learning experiences\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResource Mindset\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 152px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUsing constraints as creative catalysts\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 176px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConfidence in utilizing local resources and networks\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 206px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eContextual Ingenuity:\u003c/strong\u003e Effective practice within real-world institutional limitations\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n"},{"header":"3. Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.1 Overall Research Design and Philosophical Underpinnings\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study employed an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design embedded within a Design-Based Research (DBR) orientation [9]. The DBR framework is uniquely suited for this inquiry as it is a pragmatic methodology focused on developing contextually relevant solutions to complex educational problems through iterative cycles of design, enactment, analysis, and redesign in real-world settings. DBR\u0026rsquo;s dual goals of advancing theoretical understanding (design principles) while improving local practice (the intervention) align perfectly with this study\u0026apos;s aim to generate both actionable frameworks and generalizable knowledge about integrating DT and SDL.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe research unfolded in two sequential, integrated phases:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. Initial Qualitative Exploration: To deeply understand the context, challenges, language, and perceptions of key stakeholders at NCTE regarding pedagogical innovation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. Subsequent Quantitative Validation: To survey a larger sample of teacher educators to measure the prevalence and strength of themes identified in the qualitative phase, and to assess attitudes and perceived barriers at scale.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThis sequential approach ensured that the quantitative survey instrument was informed and contextualized by rich, local insights, enhancing its validity and relevance [9].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e 3.2 Research Setting and Participant Selection\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study was conducted at Nekemte College of Teacher Education (NCTE) in Oromia, Ethiopia\u0026mdash;an institution representative of regional teacher colleges facing common challenges of resource limitations and reform implementation pressures [22].\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eA purposive sampling strategy was used to select information-rich participants:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePhase 1 (Qualitative): Included in-depth, semi-structured interviews with two senior college administrators (Dean and Academic Vice-Dean) and one focus group discussion with five department stream heads. These participants were selected for their strategic oversight of curriculum, pedagogy, and institutional policy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePhase 2 (Quantitative): Involved a census-style survey administered to all 32 available teacher educators across various disciplines (Sciences, Languages, Social Sciences, Pedagogy) at NCTE. This approach sought to capture a broad range of perspectives from the college\u0026apos;s academic staff.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eInformed consent was obtained from all participants. Ethical approval was secured from the relevant institutional review board, with strict protocols to ensure anonymity, confidentiality, and the right to withdraw.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e 3.3 Data Collection Procedures and Instruments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQualitative Data Collection: Interview and focus group protocols were designed to explore: (a) familiarity with and understanding of DT, SDL, and related innovative pedagogies; (b) critical reflections on current pedagogical strengths and weaknesses in their programs; (c) identification of systemic, cultural, and material barriers to change; and (d) visions and suggestions for improving teacher education at NCTE. Sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and translated where necessary, with back-translation checks for accuracy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuantitative Data Collection: A self-administered survey was developed based on the emergent themes from the qualitative analysis and the literature review. It utilized a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree) to measure: (a) perceived impact and value of DT-related competencies; (b) perceived impact and value of SDL-related principles; (c) severity of specific implementation challenges (e.g., resources, training, institutional culture); and (d) openness to low-cost, contextualized adaptation strategies. The survey was piloted with a small group of educators not involved in the study to ensure clarity, face validity, and cultural appropriateness.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e 3.4 Data Analysis and Integration Strategy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQualitative Analysis: Transcripts were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis following the six-phase approach of Braun and Clarke [23]. This involved familiarization with the data, generating initial codes, constructing themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and producing the report. The analysis sought to identify both semantic (explicit) and latent (underlying) themes regarding perceptions, barriers, and possibilities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eQuantitative Analysis: Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics (frequencies, means, and standard deviations) with IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 26). This provided a snapshot of the distribution of attitudes and perceptions across the wider educator body.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eMixed-Methods Integration: Integration occurred at the interpretation stage, where qualitative themes and quantitative trends were juxtaposed and woven together to build a coherent, validated understanding [24]. We specifically looked for: convergence (where both data strands supported the same finding), complementarity (where qualitative insights explained or elaborated on quantitative results), and discordance (where findings diverged, requiring deeper investigation). This integrative analysis directly informed the development of the contextualized frameworks presented in the findings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e 3.5 Research Rigor and Trustworthiness\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo enhance the rigor and trustworthiness of the study, multiple strategies were employed across design, data collection, and analysis stages. Credibility was strengthened through methodological triangulation and the use of an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design, whereby qualitative findings from interviews and focus group discussions informed the development of the quantitative survey instrument. This sequencing ensured that survey items were grounded in participants\u0026rsquo; lived experiences and contextual realities, supporting the validity of interpretations. Integration of qualitative and quantitative findings at the interpretation stage further enabled convergence and complementarity across data sources.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eDependability was supported through transparent and systematic research procedures. Detailed documentation of sampling strategies, data collection protocols, analytical steps, and decision points was maintained throughout the study. The use of established analytical frameworks\u0026mdash;reflexive thematic analysis for qualitative data and descriptive statistical analysis for quantitative data\u0026mdash;enhanced procedural consistency and replicability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eEthical rigor was ensured through formal ethical approval from the relevant institutional review board. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection, participation was voluntary, and confidentiality and anonymity were strictly maintained. These measures collectively strengthen the methodological integrity of the study and support confidence in the credibility and trustworthiness of the findings.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Results and Discussion: Integrated Findings and Theoretical Synthesis","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e 4.1 Awareness Gap and the Persistence of Tradition (Addressing RQ1)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTeacher educators demonstrated very limited formal familiarity with the terminologies of \u0026quot;Design Thinking\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;Self-Determined Learning.\u0026quot; However, when the underlying principles were explained, they perceived them as highly valuable and aligned with stated national goals for competency-based, student-centered education.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdministrators and stream heads uniformly indicated that terms such as \u0026quot;Design Thinking\u0026quot; were new. One administrator noted, \u0026quot;We hear about active learning in workshops, but this \u0026apos;Design Thinking\u0026apos; is a new language for us.\u0026quot; Yet, during the focus group, when the DT process was described as a structured way to understand students\u0026apos; needs and creatively solve classroom problems, participants immediately engaged, providing local examples of similar, if less systematic, efforts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eSurvey results showed strong agreement that student-centered methods improve engagement (M = 4.22, SD = 0.71) and problem-solving skills (M = 3.78, SD = 0.85). However, self-reported frequent use of such methods was significantly lower (M = 3.12, SD = 1.02), confirming a value-practice gap.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis \u0026quot;awareness gap\u0026quot; constitutes a critical initial barrier to innovation, as identified in other contexts [8]. The persistence of teacher-centered pedagogy is not merely a habit but is embedded in deep-seated cultural and institutional norms, as well as in the structure of assessment systems that often reward rote recall [21]. The recognition of potential, coupled with a lack of practical \u0026quot;how-to\u0026quot; knowledge, creates a state of frustrated readiness. This underscores the necessity for the initial \u0026quot;Molting\u0026quot; phase in our proposed 3M Framework\u0026mdash;a deliberate, supported process of unlearning entrenched practices, building a new, shared vocabulary of innovation, and critically examining the assumptions underlying traditional teaching [19].\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e 4.2 Systemic Barriers: A Triad of Material, Cultural, and Governance Constraints (Addressing RQ2)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe implementation of DT and SDL is constrained by a powerful, interconnected triad of barriers: acute resource scarcity, deeply ingrained cultural-institutional resistance, and fragmented or top-down governance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants consistently highlighted material deficits: \u0026quot;insufficient teaching aids,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;overcrowded classrooms,\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;almost no digital tools for interactive work.\u0026quot; More profoundly, cultural barriers were emphasized. An administrator stated, \u0026quot;There is a fear... changing methods might risk exam results. The system rewards safe, predictable teaching, not creativity.\u0026quot; Governance was described as hierarchical, with curriculum and training decisions made centrally, leaving little room for educator-led innovation or adaptation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSurvey respondents rated \u0026quot;Inadequate material resources\u0026quot; (M = 3.81, SD = 0.88) and \u0026quot;Resistance to changing traditional teaching methods from colleagues/leadership\u0026quot; (M = 3.75, SD = 0.92) as the most severe barriers. \u0026quot;Lack of training in new methods\u0026quot; (M = 3.60, SD = 0.95) was also rated highly.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese findings resonate with broader analyses of educational challenges in Ethiopia and similar contexts [2, 20]. The barrier is socio-technical; it involves the interplay of tools, practices, and deeply held beliefs. A culture of risk-aversion, reinforced by high-stakes examinations, systematically stifles the experimental \u0026quot;test and learn\u0026quot; ethos essential to DT [8]. This creates a paradox of innovation: a system that calls for reform simultaneously punishes the deviations and experimentation required to achieve it. Insights from implementation science highlight that poor intervention-context fit is a primary reason innovations fail [16]. Therefore, successful integration cannot simply \u0026quot;add on\u0026quot; DT/SDL training; it must involve strategies to adapt the core principles to this constrained context, a process central to the \u0026quot;Molding\u0026quot; phase [13].\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e 4.3 Proposing Contextualized Models: The 3M Framework and STEAMSH Interdisciplinary Lens (Addressing RQ3)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eData from both phases converged on the necessity for a structured, culturally grounded, and scalable model for integration. In direct response, this study developed and proposes two intertwined frameworks: the 3M Process Model and the STEAMSH Interdisciplinary Lens.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe 3M Framework: A Cyclical Model for Institutional Change\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThis is an iterative, phased model for supporting transformative professional learning:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. Molting: Shedding outdated practices. Activities include critical reflection workshops, immersive experiences in DT/SDL basics, and co-creating a collective vision for change. This phase aims to build psychological safety and a shared language [19].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. Molding: Actively shaping new competencies and practices. This involves collaborative design sprints to create lesson prototypes, forming DT learning circles or Teacher Design Teams (TDTs), and implementing and testing frugal adaptations. This phase is where the core integration of DT process and SDL agency occurs through hands-on projects [15].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. Modeling: Demonstrating and disseminating success. Educator-practitioners pilot refined prototypes in their courses, conduct classroom action research, and become mentors for peers, thereby scaling the innovation organically and building internal leadership.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis framework operationalizes DBR principles and transformative learning theory, providing a manageable pathway that reduces overwhelm by focusing on achievable stages.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe STEAMSH Framework: Ensuring Cultural and Interdisciplinary Relevance\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eMoving beyond the Western STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) model, STEAMSH explicitly integrates Aesthetics, Social Studies, and Humanities with science and technology [25]. For Ethiopia, this means:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Connecting physics principles to indigenous engineering (e.g., the design of traditional housing)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Exploring ecological change through both environmental science and Oromo ecological knowledge (\u003cem\u003eAadaa\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Using local history, art, and social narratives as contexts for design challenges\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis framework ensures innovation is not a foreign import but is culturally grounded and interdisciplinary, increasing relevance and sustainability. It aligns with global calls for education that connects to students\u0026apos; lives and local knowledge systems.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe 3M and STEAMSH frameworks together address the core implementation challenge of fit [16]. The 3M Framework addresses the process of change at the individual and institutional level, while STEAMSH addresses the content and context of that change. This mirrors findings that successful professional development requires both a supportive process (such as TDTs) and content that is relevant to teachers\u0026apos; immediate contexts [15]. By promoting frugal innovation\u0026mdash;using local, low-cost materials for prototyping\u0026mdash;the model directly confronts the resource barrier, turning constraints into catalysts for creativity, as observed in Latin American adaptations [13]. Table 2 shows adaptable DT strategies in resource-constrained environments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2. Low-Cost Design Thinking Adaptation Strategies for the Ethiopian Context\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"626\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eContextual Barrier\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 207px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLow-Cost DT Strategy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 280px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eApplication in NCTE (Molding Phase)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLack of prototyping materials\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 207px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUse locally available or recycled materials for frugal prototyping\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 280px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCreate classroom models or teaching aids using clay, cardboard, fabric scraps, and bottle caps\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLimited digital connectivity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 207px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUtilize analog DT tools and shared physical work spaces\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 280px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDeploy printed empathy maps and ideation canvases; set up a \u0026ldquo;project wall\u0026rdquo; for team collaboration\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eShortage of expert trainers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 207px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePeer-led DT/SDL ambassador groups and collaborative design teams\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 280px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTrain a small cohort to lead learning circles and co-design curriculum innovations\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRigid curriculum and time constraints\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 207px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUse micro-projects and competency badges\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 280px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEmbed 2-week DT challenges within existing courses and reward progress with simple badge systems\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 1 Conceptual integration of Design Thinking (DT) and Self-Determined Learning (SDL) for enhancing teacher educator competency and professional capability in resource-constrained contexts. The model situates DT as a structured problem-solving process and SDL as the motivational and metacognitive foundation, operationalized through the 3M Process Model (Molting\u0026ndash;Molding\u0026ndash;Modeling) and contextualized using a STEAMSH interdisciplinary lens.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusion, Implications, and Future Directions","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.1 Summary of Contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThis study confirms the existence of a significant potential-recognition gap in Ethiopian teacher education: educators perceive the value of innovative, student-centered pedagogies aligned with national reforms but operate within a system that constrains their implementation through material, cultural, and governance barriers [3, 20].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe primary contribution is the proposition of two intertwined, context-sensitive frameworks designed to bridge this gap:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. The 3M Process Model (Molting-Molding-Modeling): A phased, iterative pathway for institutional and individual change that balances structure with the autonomy central to SDL.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. The STEAMSH Interdisciplinary Lens: A framework for ensuring pedagogical innovation is culturally grounded and relevant, moving beyond imported models to foster localized, meaningful design challenges [25].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese frameworks explicitly link the development of individual educator competency and capability with a supportive institutional change process, all while prioritizing frugality and cultural relevance [10, 13]. They exemplify how global pedagogical insights can be hybridized with local knowledge and realities\u0026mdash;a form of \u0026quot;glocalization\u0026quot; essential for sustainable and equitable educational reform.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;5.2 Implications for Policy, Leadership, and Practice\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eFor College Leadership (NCTE and Peers):\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Initiate a formal \u0026quot;Molting\u0026quot; process through a series of vision-building workshops that include administrators, stream heads, and educators [19].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Establish a small \u0026quot;Innovation Micro-Grant\u0026quot; fund to support faculty-led, low-cost prototype projects emerging from the \u0026quot;Molding\u0026quot; phase.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Formally institute Teacher Design Teams (TDTs) as core professional development structures, tasked with collaboratively developing one STEAMSH-based curriculum module per semester [15].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor Regional/National Policymakers:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Revise teacher educator professional development standards to include facilitation skills for DT and heutagogical (SDL) approaches [14].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Incentivize institutional innovation through recognition, awards, or preferential funding for colleges that demonstrate effective, contextually-adapted pedagogical reforms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Support the creation of a national digital repository for sharing frugal teaching resources, adaptation strategies, and case studies from successful TDTs [13].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor Teacher Educators:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Begin with small, personal experiments: incorporate one element of DT (e.g., conducting empathy interviews with students before redesigning an assignment) or SDL (e.g., offering choice in how students demonstrate learning) into a single course [5, 7].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Seek out or form a peer reflection group to share experiences, challenges, and successes, building a community of practice around innovation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.3 Limitations and Avenues for Future Research\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study is limited by its focus on a single institution and the relatively small scale of its quantitative sample, which cautions against broad generalization [9]. The proposed 3M and STEAMSH frameworks, while grounded in empirical data and theory, require rigorous empirical testing through full DBR cycles.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\n\u003cp\u003eFuture research should:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. Implement and longitudinally study the 3M Model across multiple teacher colleges in diverse Ethiopian regions to assess its scalability, adaptability, and impact on both educator practices and, ultimately, student learning outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. Conduct detailed ethnographic case studies of Teacher Design Teams engaged in STEAMSH curriculum design to understand the micro-processes of collaboration, conflict, creativity, and contextual hybridization that occur.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. Investigate the specific policy levers, funding models, and leadership practices that most effectively create an enabling environment for pedagogical innovation in resource-constrained public institutions, drawing from implementation science frameworks [16].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4. Explore the direct relationship between educators\u0026apos; self-regulated learning capacities and their effectiveness in implementing design thinking, building on international findings [12], to tailor support mechanisms within the \u0026quot;Molding\u0026quot; phase.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;5.4 Concluding Reflection\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTransforming Ethiopian teacher education\u0026mdash;and by extension, its entire school system\u0026mdash;requires moving beyond the importation of foreign models or the one-off training of individuals in new techniques. It demands a systemic redesign that empowers educators as agentic designers and self-determined learners. The integration of Design Thinking and Self-Determined Learning, guided by the contextualizing principles of the 3M Process Model and the STEAMSH Interdisciplinary Lens, offers a coherent and promising pathway [5, 6, 13, 25]. This approach seeks to cultivate the adaptive, creative, and resilient professionals essential for realizing the transformative promise of Ethiopia\u0026apos;s educational future, turning systemic constraints into catalysts for sustainable, home-grown innovation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAuthor ContributionsAEA conceptualized the study, conducted data collection and analysis, and drafted the manuscript. TTO contributed to methodological design, theoretical framing, and critical manuscript review. TSG provided academic supervision, conceptual refinement, and editorial guidance. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEthics Approval and Consent to Participate\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Jimma University (Protocol Number: JU-IRB-032/2024) in accordance with the guidelines and regulations set forth by the Ethiopian National Research Ethics Review Guideline (5th edition, 2019). Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection. Participation was voluntary, and confidentiality and anonymity were ensured throughout the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsent for Publication\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable. This manuscript does not contain any individual person\u0026rsquo;s data in any form (including individual details, images, or videos).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData Availability Statement\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to participant confidentiality but are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConflicting Interests\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFunding\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThird-Party Material\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo. All material (including text, tables, and the conceptual framework figure) is owned by the authors, and no permissions are required for reproduction under a CC BY open access license.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMinistry of Education (MoE). Education Development Roadmap (2018\u0026ndash;2030). Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia; 2018.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDawit M, Tebeje A. Challenges of implementing the Ethiopian Education Development Roadmap: A review of funding, conflict, and policy stability. J Ethiop Educ. 2024;15(2):45\u0026ndash;67.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYisak A, Tadesse T. Competence-based teacher education and professional learning in Ethiopia. Int J Teach Educ. 2020;9(2):33\u0026ndash;49.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTemesgen Y, Woldu A. The practices and challenges of teacher educators\u0026apos; professional development through lesson study. Ethiop J Educ Sci. 2018;13(1):1\u0026ndash;20.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown T. Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York: HarperCollins; 2009.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHase S, Kenyon C. From andragogy to heutagogy. UltiBASE Articles. 2000;5(3):1\u0026ndash;10.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRyan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York: Guilford Press; 2020.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGibbons S. Barriers to implementing design thinking in teacher education. J Educ Change. 2020;21(3):211\u0026ndash;29.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCreswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2017.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStephenson J. The concept of capability and its importance in higher education. Stud High Educ. 1998;23(2):127\u0026ndash;39.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHenriksen D, Richardson C, Mehta R. Design thinking: A creative approach to educational problems of practice. Think Skills Creat. 2017;26:140\u0026ndash;53. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVogrinc J, Kalin J. Mapping the relationships between self-directed learning and design thinking in pre-service science and technology teachers. Sustainability. 2022;14(14):8626.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eScheer A, Noweski C, Meinel C. Design thinking in education: Low-cost adaptations for global classrooms. Cham: Springer; 2021.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlaschke LM. Heutagogy and lifelong learning: A review of heutagogical practice and self-determined learning. Int Rev Res Open Distrib Learn. 2012;13(1):56\u0026ndash;71.15. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDarling-Hammond L, Hyler ME, Gardner M. Effective teacher professional development. Palo Alto: Learning Policy Institute; 2017.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEisman AB, Gwon H, Heinze JE. A mixed methods investigation of implementation determinants for an evidence-based intervention in schools. Implement Res Pract. 2022;3:1\u0026ndash;15.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBerhanemeskel T, Fisseha M. Policy reforms and unresolved educational challenges in Ethiopia. Bahir Dar J Educ. 2024;24(1):1\u0026ndash;20.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFekede T, Tynjala P. Exploring teachers\u0026apos; motivation for teaching and professional development in Ethiopia. J Stud Educ. 2015;5(2):169\u0026ndash;86.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArag\u0026oacute;n OR, Dovidio JF, Graham MJ. Colorblind and multicultural ideologies are associated with faculty adoption of inclusive teaching practices. J Divers High Educ. 2017;10(3):201\u0026ndash;15.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKamanga J. Educational challenges in Ethiopia. Berlin: Brokenchalk; 2020.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSolomon T. Challenges and opportunities in the Ethiopian education system. J Ethiop Stud. 2021;58(3):234\u0026ndash;49.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOromia Education Bureau (OEB). Oromia Regional State perspective plan for universal primary education. Addis Ababa: OEB; 2005.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBraun V, Clarke V. Thematic analysis: A practical guide. London: Sage Publications; 2022.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eParrish CW, Williams DS. A mixed-methods research design to advance inclusive and equitable teaching in higher education. Innov High Educ. 2024;49(5):1105\u0026ndash;25. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYakman G. STEAM education: An overview of creating a model of integrative education. In: PATT-19 Conference Proceedings; 2008. p. 335\u0026ndash;58.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Design Thinking, Self-Determined Learning, Teacher Educator Capability, Design-Based Research, Educational Innovation, Resource-Constrained Contexts, Ethiopia","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9457821/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9457821/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eDespite Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s policy commitment to competency-based and student-centered teacher education, a persistent gap remains between reform intentions and classroom practice. Globally, Design Thinking (DT) and Self-Determined Learning (SDL/heutagogy) have demonstrated potential for enhancing educators\u0026rsquo; adaptive competencies and professional capability; however, their integrated application in resource-constrained contexts remains underexplored. Guided by a Design-Based Research (DBR) framework, this study investigated how the integration of DT and SDL can enhance teacher educator competency and capability at Nekemte College of Teacher Education (NCTE), Ethiopia. An exploratory sequential mixed-methods design was employed. Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews with senior administrators and a focus group with department heads to examine awareness, perceptions, and systemic barriers. These findings informed a quantitative survey administered to all 32 teacher educators at the institution. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically, while quantitative data were examined using descriptive statistics, with integration occurring at the interpretation stage.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFindings reveal a pronounced awareness\u0026ndash;practice gap: although formal familiarity with DT and SDL was limited, educators strongly valued their underlying principles. Major barriers included material scarcity, risk-averse institutional culture, and centralized governance structures. In response, the study developed two contextually grounded frameworks: the 3M Process Model (Molting\u0026ndash;Molding\u0026ndash;Modeling) and a STEAMSH interdisciplinary lens, emphasizing frugal innovation and cultural relevance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConsistent with international research, results suggest that DT provides a structured problem-solving process, while SDL supplies the motivational and metacognitive foundation necessary for sustained pedagogical innovation. The study contributes empirically grounded, context-sensitive models for strengthening teacher educator capability in Ethiopia and comparable Global South contexts, offering practical pathways for aligning policy ambitions with classroom practice.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Integrating Design Thinking with Self-Determined Learning to Enhance Teacher Educator Competency and Capability in Nekemte college of Teacher Education","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-05-18 16:25:37","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9457821/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"124086739488769637959369823084778972115","date":"2026-05-23T04:33:05+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"42609551353721956237411879531301622783","date":"2026-05-22T08:38:44+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"319724213814586261394726039218001556836","date":"2026-05-09T10:40:14+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-05-07T10:36:15+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-04-29T09:10:31+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-04-27T08:33:22+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Education","date":"2026-04-27T07:45:35+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"0021670a-0e16-4cb4-a806-c1aedaf7b5ba","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 18th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"124086739488769637959369823084778972115","date":"2026-05-23T04:33:05+00:00","index":54,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"42609551353721956237411879531301622783","date":"2026-05-22T08:38:44+00:00","index":52,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"319724213814586261394726039218001556836","date":"2026-05-09T10:40:14+00:00","index":31,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"30","date":"2026-05-07T10:36:15+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-18T16:25:37+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-05-18 16:25:37","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9457821","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9457821","identity":"rs-9457821","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}