design thinking in higher education

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

Design Thinking in Education: Perspectives, Opportunities and Challenges

The article discusses design thinking as a process and mindset for collaboratively finding solutions for wicked problems in a variety of educational settings. Through a systematic literature review the article organizes case studies, reports, theoretical reflections, and other scholarly work to enhance our understanding of the purposes, contexts, benefits, limitations, affordances, constraints, effects and outcomes of design thinking in education. Specifically, the review pursues four questions: (1) What are the characteristics of design thinking that make it particularly fruitful for education? (2) How is design thinking applied in different educational settings? (3) What tools, techniques and methods are characteristic for design thinking? (4) What are the limitations or negative effects of design thinking? The goal of the article is to describe the current knowledge base to gain an improved understanding of the role of design thinking in education, to enhance research communication and discussion of best practice approaches and to chart immediate avenues for research and practice.

Aflatoony, L., Wakkary, R., & Neustaedter, C. (2018). Becoming a Design Thinker: Assessing the Learning Process of Students in a Secondary Level Design Thinking Course. International Journal of Art & Design Education , 37 (3), 438–453. 10.1111/jade.12139 Search in Google Scholar

Altringer, B., & Habbal, F. (2015). Embedding Design Thinking in a Multidisciplinary Engineering Curriculum. In VentureWell. Proceedings of Open, the Annual Conference (p. 1). National Collegiate Inventors & Innovators Alliance. Search in Google Scholar

Anderson, N. (2012). Design Thinking: Employing an Effective Multidisciplinary Pedagogical Framework to Foster Creativity and Innovation in Rural and Remote Education. Australian and International Journal of Rural Education , 22 (2), 43–52. Search in Google Scholar

Apel, A., Hull, P., Owczarek, S., & Singer, W. (2018). Transforming the Enrollment Experience Using Design Thinking. College and University , 93 (1), 45–50. Search in Google Scholar

Badwan, B., Bothara, R., Latijnhouwers, M., Smithies, A., & Sandars, J. (2018). The importance of design thinking in medical education. Medical Teacher , 40 (4), 425–426. 10.1080/0142159X.2017.1399203 Search in Google Scholar

Beligatamulla, G., Rieger, J., Franz, J., & Strickfaden, M. (2019). Making Pedagogic Sense of Design Thinking in the Higher Education Context. Open Education Studies , 1 (1), 91–105. 10.1515/edu-2019-0006 Search in Google Scholar

Bosman, L. (2019). From Doing to Thinking: Developing the Entrepreneurial Mindset through Scaffold Assignments and Self-Regulated Learning Reflection. Open Education Studies , 1 (1), 106–121. 10.1515/edu-2019-0007 Search in Google Scholar

Bowler, L. (2014). Creativity through “Maker” Experiences and Design Thinking in the Education of Librarians. Knowledge Quest , 42 (5), 58–61. Search in Google Scholar

Bross, J., Acar, A. E., Schilf, P., & Meinel, C. (2009, August). Spurring Design Thinking through educational weblogging. In Computational Science and Engineering, 2009. CSE’09. International Conference on (Vol. 4, pp. 903–908). IEEE. 10.1109/CSE.2009.207 Search in Google Scholar

Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation . New York: HarperCollins Publishers. Search in Google Scholar

Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Development Outreach , 12 (1), 29–43. 10.1596/1020-797X_12_1_29 Search in Google Scholar

Brown, A. (2018). Exploring Faces and Places of Makerspaces. AACE Review. Retrieved from March 3, 2019 https://www.aace.org/review/exploring-faces-places-makerspaces/ Search in Google Scholar

Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues , 8 (2), 5–21. 10.2307/1511637 Search in Google Scholar

Callahan, K. C. (2019). Design Thinking in Curricula. In The International Encyclopedia of Art and Design Education (pp. 1–6). American Cancer Society. 10.1002/9781118978061.ead069 Search in Google Scholar

Camacho, M. (2018). An integrative model of design thinking. In The 21st DMI: Academic Design Management Conference, ‘Next Wave’, London, Ravensbourne, United Kingdom, 1 – 2 August 2018 (p. 627). Search in Google Scholar

Cañas, A. J., Novak, J. D., & González, F. (2004). Using concept maps in qualitative research. In Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology Proc. of the First Int. Conference on Concept Mapping (pp. 7–15). Search in Google Scholar

Cantoni, L., Marchiori, E., Faré, M., Botturi, L., & Bolchini, D. (2009, October). A systematic methodology to use lego bricks in web communication design. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM international conference on Design of communication (pp. 187–192). ACM. 10.1145/1621995.1622032 Search in Google Scholar

Carroll, M. P. (2014). Shoot for the Moon! the Mentors and the Middle Schoolers Explore the Intersection of Design Thinking and STEM. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research , 4 (1), 14–30. 10.7771/2157-9288.1072 Search in Google Scholar

Carroll, M., Goldman, S., Britos, L., Koh, J., Royalty, A., & Hornstein, M. (2010). Destination, Imagination and the Fires within: Design Thinking in a Middle School Classroom. International Journal of Art & Design Education , 29 (1), 37–53. 10.1111/j.1476-8070.2010.01632.x Search in Google Scholar

Cassim, F. (2013). Hands on, hearts on, minds on: Design thinking within an education context. International Journal of Art & Design Education , 32 (2), 190–202. 10.1111/j.1476-8070.2013.01752.x Search in Google Scholar

Carlgren, L., Rauth, I., & Elmquist, M. (2016). Framing design thinking: The concept in idea and enactment. Creativity and Innovation Management , 25 (1), 38–57. 10.1111/caim.12153 Search in Google Scholar

Cochrane, T., & Munn, J. (2016). EDR and Design Thinking: Enabling Creative Pedagogies. In Proceedings of EdMedia 2016--World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 315–324). Vancouver, BC, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved April 3, 2018 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/172969/ . Search in Google Scholar

Coleman, M. C. (2016). Design Thinking and the School Library. Knowledge Quest , 44 (5), 62–68. Search in Google Scholar

Cook, K. L., & Bush, S. B. (2018). Design Thinking in Integrated STEAM Learning: Surveying the Landscape and Exploring Exemplars in Elementary Grades. School Science and Mathematics , 118 , 93–103. 10.1111/ssm.12268 Search in Google Scholar

Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47 (6), 1154–1191. 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00880.x Search in Google Scholar

Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies , 32 (6), 521–532. 10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006 Search in Google Scholar

Douglass, H. (2016). Engineering Encounters: No, David! but Yes, Design! Kindergarten Students Are Introduced to a Design Way of Thinking. Science and Children , 53 (9), 69–75. 10.2505/4/sc16_053_09_69 Search in Google Scholar

Dunne, D., & Martin, R. (2006). Design Thinking and How It Will Change Management Education: An Interview and Discussion. Academy of Management Learning & Education , 5 (4), 512–523. 10.5465/amle.2006.23473212 Search in Google Scholar

Elsbach, K. D., & Stigliani, I. (2018). Design Thinking and Organizational Culture: A Review and Framework for Future Research. Journal of Management , 0149206317744252. 10.1177/0149206317744252 Search in Google Scholar

Eppler, M. J., & Kernbach, S. (2016). Dynagrams: Enhancing design thinking through dynamic diagrams. Design Studies , 47 , 91–117. 10.1016/j.destud.2016.09.001 Search in Google Scholar

Ferguson, R., Barzilai, S., Ben-Zvi, D., Chinn, C. A., Herodotou, C., Hod, Y., Kali, Y., Kukulska-Hulme, A., Kupermintz, H., McAndrew, P., Rienties, B., Sagy, O., Scanlon, E., Sharples, M., Weller, M., & Whitelock, D. (2017). Innovating Pedagogy 2017: Open University Innovation Report 6. Milton Keynes: The Open University, UK. Retrieved April 3, 2018 from https://iet.open.ac.uk/file/innovating-pedagogy-2017.pdf Search in Google Scholar

Ferguson, R., Coughlan, T., Egelandsdal, K., Gaved, M., Herodotou, C., Hillaire, G., ... & Misiejuk, K. (2019). Innovating Pedagogy 2019: Open University Innovation Report 7. Retrieved March 3, 2019 from https://iet.open.ac.uk/file/innovating-pedagogy-2019.pdf Search in Google Scholar

Fabri, M., Andrews, P. C., & Pukki, H. K. (2016). Using design thinking to engage autistic students in participatory design of an online toolkit to help with transition into higher education. Journal of Assistive Technologies , 10 (2), 102–114. 10.1108/JAT-02-2016-0008 Search in Google Scholar

Fouché, J., & Crowley, J. (2017). Kidding around with Design Thinking. Educational Leadership , 75 (2), 65–69. Search in Google Scholar

Fontaine, L. (2014). Learning Design Thinking by Designing Learning Experiences: A Case Study in the Development of Strategic Thinking Skills through the Design of Interactive Museum Exhibitions. Visible Language , 48 (2). Search in Google Scholar

Gallagher, A., & Thordarson, K. (2018). Design Thinking for School Leaders: Five Roles and Mindsets That Ignite Positive Change . ASCD. Search in Google Scholar

Gestwicki, P., & McNely, B. (2012). A case study of a five-step design thinking process in educational museum game design. Proceedings of Meaningful Play . Search in Google Scholar

Glen, R., Suciu, C., Baughn, C. C., & Anson, R. (2015). Teaching design thinking in business schools. The International Journal of Management Education , 13 (2), 182–192. 10.1016/j.ijme.2015.05.001 Search in Google Scholar

Goldman, S., Kabayadondo, Z., Royalty, A., Carroll, M. P., & Roth, B. (2014). Student teams in search of design thinking. In Design Thinking Research (pp. 11–34). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-01303-9_2 Search in Google Scholar

Goldschmidt, G. (2017). Design Thinking: A Method or a Gateway into Design Cognition?. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation , 3 (2), 107–112. 10.1016/j.sheji.2017.10.009 Search in Google Scholar

Gottlieb, M., Wagner, E., Wagner, A., & Chan, T. (2017). Applying design thinking principles to curricular development in medical education. AEM Education and Training , 1 (1), 21–26. 10.1002/aet2.10003 Search in Google Scholar

Gross, K., & Gross, S. (2016). Transformation: Constructivism, design thinking, and elementary STEAM. Art Education , 69 (6), 36–43. 10.1080/00043125.2016.1224869 Search in Google Scholar

Grots, A., & Creuznacher, I. (2016). Design Thinking: Process or Culture? In Design Thinking for Innovation (pp. 183–191). Springer. Search in Google Scholar

Groth, C. (2017). Making sense through hands: Design and craft practice analysed as embodied cognition . Thesis. Search in Google Scholar

Harth, T., & Panke, S. (2018). Design Thinking in Teacher Education: Preparing Engineering Students for Teaching at Vocational Schools. In E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 392–407). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Search in Google Scholar

Harth, T. & Panke, S. (2019). Creating Effective Physical Learning Spaces in the Digital Age – Results of a Student-Centered Design Thinking Workshop. In S. Carliner (Ed.), Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 284-294). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Search in Google Scholar

Hawryszkiewycz, I., Pradhan, S., & Agarwal, R. (2015). Design thinking as a framework for fostering creativity in management and information systems teaching programs. In Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems . AISEL. Search in Google Scholar

Hernández-Ramírez, R. (2018). On Design Thinking, Bullshit, and Innovation. Journal of Science and Technology of the Arts , 10 (3), 2–45. 10.7559/citarj.v10i3.555 Search in Google Scholar

Hodgkinson, G. (2013). Teaching Design Thinking. In J. Herrington, A. Couros & V. Irvine (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia 2013--World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 1520–1524). Victoria, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Search in Google Scholar

Holzer, A., Gillet, D., & Lanerrouza, M. (2019). Active Interdisciplinary Learning in a Design Thinking Course: Going to Class for a Reason , 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1109/TALE.2018.8615292 10.1109/TALE.2018.8615292 Search in Google Scholar

Jacobs, C. D. (2016). “Making Is Thinking”: The Design Practice of Crafting Strategy. In Design Thinking for Innovation (pp. 131–140). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-26100-3_9 Search in Google Scholar

Jensen, C. N., Seager, T. P., & Cook-Davis, A. (2018). LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® In Multidisciplinary Student Teams. International Journal of Management and Applied Research , 5 (4), 264–280. 10.18646/2056.54.18-020 Search in Google Scholar

Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design thinking: Past, present and possible futures. Creativity and Innovation Management , 22 (2), 121–146. 10.1111/caim.12023 Search in Google Scholar

Jordan, S., & Lande, M. (2016). Additive innovation in design thinking and making. International Journal of Engineering Education , 32 (3), 1438–1444. Search in Google Scholar

Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2012). Activity theory in HCI: Fundamentals and Reflections. Synthesis Lectures Human-Centered Informatics , 5 (1), 1–105. 10.2200/S00413ED1V01Y201203HCI013 Search in Google Scholar

Keele, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. In Technical report, Ver. 2.3 EBSE Technical Report. EBSE. sn. Search in Google Scholar

Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking design thinking: Part I. Design and Culture , 3 (3), 285–306. 10.2752/175470811X13071166525216 Search in Google Scholar

Koria, M., Graff, D., & Karjalainen, T.-M. (2011). Learning design thinking: International design business management at Aalto University. Review on Design, Innovation and Strategic Management , 2 (1), 1–21. Search in Google Scholar

Kwek, S. H. (2011). Innovation in the Classroom: Design Thinking for 21st Century Learning. (Master’s thesis). Retrieved March 3, 2019 from http://www.stanford.edu/group/redlab/cgibin/publications_resources.php Search in Google Scholar

Larson, L. (2017). Engaging Families in the Galleries Using Design Thinking. Journal of Museum Education , 42 (4), 376–384. 10.1080/10598650.2017.1379294 Search in Google Scholar

Leeder, T. (2019). Learning to mentor in sports coaching: A design thinking approach. Sport, Education and Society , 24 (2), 208–211. 10.1080/13573322.2018.1563403 Search in Google Scholar

Lee, D., Yoon, J., & Kang, S.-J. (2015). The Suggestion of Design Thinking Process and its Feasibility Study for Fostering Group Creativity of Elementary-Secondary School Students in Science Education. Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education , 35 , 443–453. 10.14697/jkase.2015.35.3.0443 Search in Google Scholar

Levy, Y., & Ellis, T. J. (2006). A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Science: International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 9 (1), 181–212. 10.28945/479 Search in Google Scholar

Leifer, L., & Meinel, C. (2016). Manifesto: Design thinking becomes foundational. In Design Thinking Research (pp. 1–4). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-19641-1_1 Search in Google Scholar

Leverenz, C. S. (2014). Design thinking and the wicked problem of teaching writing. Computers and Composition , 33 , 1–12. 10.1016/j.compcom.2014.07.001 Search in Google Scholar

Liedtka, J. (2015). Perspective: Linking design thinking with innovation outcomes through cognitive bias reduction. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 32 (6), 925–938. 10.1111/jpim.12163 Search in Google Scholar

Lindberg, T., Meinel, C., & Wagner, R. (2011). Design thinking: A fruitful concept for it development? In Design Thinking (pp. 3–18). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Search in Google Scholar

Lor, R. (2017). Design Thinking in Education: A Critical Review of Literature. In International academic conference on social sciences and management / Asian conference on education and psychology. conference proceedings (pp. 37–68). Bangkok, Thailand. Search in Google Scholar

Louridas, P. (1999). Design as bricolage: anthropology meets design thinking. Design Studies , 20 (6), 517–535. 10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00044-1 Search in Google Scholar

MacLeod, S., Dodd, J., & Duncan, T. (2015). New museum design cultures: harnessing the potential of design and ‘design thinking’ in museums. Museum Management and Curatorship , 30 (4), 314–341. 10.1080/09647775.2015.1042513 Search in Google Scholar

Martin, R. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage . Harvard Business Press. Search in Google Scholar

Matthews, J. H., & Wrigley, C. (2017). Design and design thinking in business and management higher education. Journal of Learning Design , 10 (1), 41–54. 10.5204/jld.v9i3.294 Search in Google Scholar

McLaughlin, J. E., Wolcott, M. D., Hubbard, D., Umstead, K., & Rider, T. R. (2019). A qualitative review of the design thinking framework in health professions education. BMC Medical Education , 19 , 98. 10.1186/s12909-019-1528-8 Search in Google Scholar

Melles, G., Howard, Z., & Thompson-Whiteside, S. (2012). Teaching design thinking: Expanding horizons in design education. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 162–166. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.035 Search in Google Scholar

Melles, G., Anderson, N., Barrett, T., & Thompson-Whiteside, S. (2015). Problem finding through design thinking in education. In Inquiry-based learning for multidisciplinary programs: A conceptual and practical resource for educators (pp. 191–209). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Search in Google Scholar

Micheli, P., Wilner, S. J., Bhatti, S., Mura, M., & Beverland, M. B. (2018). Doing Design Thinking: Conceptual Review, Synthesis and Research Agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management . Search in Google Scholar

Molinari, A., & Gasparini, A. A. (2019). When Students Design University: A Case Study of Creative Interdisciplinarity between Design Thinking and Humanities. Open Education Studies , 1 (1), 24–52. 10.1515/edu-2019-0002 Search in Google Scholar

Motschnig, R., Pfeiffer, D., Gawin, A., Gawin, P., Steiner, M., & Streli, L. (2019). Enhancing stanford design thinking for kids with digital technologies a participatory action research approach to challenge-based learning . 2018-October . Search in Google Scholar

Munyai, K. (2016). Design Thinking: A Methodology towards Sustainable Problem Solving in Higher Education in South Africa . International Association for the Development of the Information Society. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?q=title%3a%22Design+Thinking%22&pg=3&id=ED571612 Search in Google Scholar

Mumford, C., Zoller, T., & Proforta, T. (2016). How to Teach Design Thinking within Entrepreneurship- A Practical Guide. In United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Conference Proceedings (pp. 1–3). Boca Raton: United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Search in Google Scholar

Ohly, S., Plückthun, L., & Kissel, D. (2017). Developing Students’ Creative Self-Efficacy Based on Design-Thinking: Evaluation of an Elective University Course. Psychology Learning & Teaching , 16 (1), 125–132. 10.1177/1475725716681714 Search in Google Scholar

Panke, S. (2016). Creative Needs Assessment in Instructional Design: Selected Examples. In EdMedia+ Innovate Learning (pp. 349–353). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Search in Google Scholar

Panke, S., Gaiser, B., & Werner, B. (2007). Evaluation as Impetus for Innovations in E-learning—Applying personas to the design of community functions. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching , 3 (2), 179–190. Search in Google Scholar

Panke, S., Allen, G., & McAvinchey, D. (2014). Re-Envisioning the University Website: Participatory Design Case Study. In E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 1540–1549). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Search in Google Scholar

Panke, S., & Harth, T. (2018). Design Thinking for Inclusive Community Design:(How) Does it Work? In EdMedia+ Innovate Learning (pp. 284–296). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Search in Google Scholar

Panke, S. (2018a). EdTech Research – Where to Publish, How to Share (Part 3): Social Networks and Identifiers for Sharing Articles and Monitoring Citations. AACE Review. Retrieved on March 3, 2019 from http://www.aace.org/review/edtech-research-publish-share-part-3-social-networks-identifiers-sharing-articles-monitoring-citations/ Search in Google Scholar

Panke, S. (2018b). EdTech Research: Finding, Organizing and Citing Research – Bibliographic Formats & Tools. AACE Review. Retrieved on March 3, 2019 from http://www.aace.org/review/edtech-research-finding-organizing-and-citing-research-bibliographic-formats-tools/ Search in Google Scholar

Parrish, J., Parks, R., & Taylor, A. (2017). Building Bridges with Student Mentoring: A Design Thinking Approach. College and University , 92 (1), 31. Search in Google Scholar

Peters, R. A., & Maatman, J. (2017). Long-Term Trends Accentuate the Import of Creative and Critical Thinking Skills Developed by Design Thinking and Ill-Defined Questions. Teaching Public Administration , 35 (2), 190–208. 10.1177/0144739416680850 Search in Google Scholar

Pope-Ruark, R., Moses, J., & Tham, J. (2019). Iterating the Literature: An Early Annotated Bibliography of Design-Thinking Resources. Journal of Business and Technical Communication , 33 (4), 456–465. 10.1177/1050651919854096 Search in Google Scholar

Primus, D. J., & Sonnenburg, S. (2018). Flow Experience in Design Thinking and Practical Synergies with Lego Serious Play. Creativity Research Journal , 30 (1), 104–112. 10.1080/10400419.2018.1411574 Search in Google Scholar

Pruitt, J., & Grudin, J. (2003, June). Personas: practice and theory. In Proceedings of the 2003 conference on Designing for user experiences (pp. 1–15). ACM. 10.1145/997078.997089 Search in Google Scholar

Purdy, J. P. (2014). What can design thinking offer writing studies? College Composition and Communication , 612–641. Search in Google Scholar

Rauth, I., Köppen, E., Jobst, B., & Meinel, C. (2010). Design thinking: an educational model towards creative confidence. In DS 66-2: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on design creativity (ICDC 2010) . Search in Google Scholar

Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What Is Design Thinking and Why Is It Important? Review of Educational Research , 82 (3), 330–348. 10.3102/0034654312457429 Search in Google Scholar

Renard, H. (2014). Cultivating Design Thinking in Students through Material Inquiry. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education , 26 (3), 414–424. Search in Google Scholar

Retna, K. S. (2016). Thinking about “Design Thinking”: A Study of Teacher Experiences. Asia Pacific Journal of Education , 36 , 5–19. 10.1080/02188791.2015.1005049 Search in Google Scholar

Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4 (2), 155–169. 10.1007/BF01405730 Search in Google Scholar

Roos, D. J., & Grey, J. (2004). Playing Seriously with Science Strategy. Imagination Lab Foundation Working Papers Series (45). Retrieved on March 3, 2019 from http://www.imagilab.org/research_workingpapers.htm#46 Search in Google Scholar

Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign , 4 (1), 5–18. 10.1080/15710880701875068 Search in Google Scholar

Schlenker, L. (2014). Design in Practice: Scenarios for Improving Management Education. In 11th International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age, CELDA (pp. 187–194). Porto, Portugal. Search in Google Scholar

Sharples, M., McAndrew, P., Weller, M., Ferguson, R., FitzGerald, E., Hirst, T., & Whitelock, D. (2014). Innovating pedagogy 2014. Milton Keynes, UK: The Open University. Search in Google Scholar

Sharples, M., de Roock, R., Ferguson, R., Gaved, M., Herodotou, C., Koh, E., … Wong, L. H. (2016). Innovating Pedagogy 2016: Open University Innovation Report 5 . Milton Keynes: The Open University. Search in Google Scholar

Sheehan, N. T., Gujarathi, M. R., Jones, J. C., & Phillips, F. (2018). Using Design Thinking to Write and Publish Novel Teaching Cases: Tips from Experienced Case Authors. Journal of Management Education , 42 (1), 135–160. 10.1177/1052562917741179 Search in Google Scholar

Skaggs, P. (2018). Design Thinking: Empathy through Observation, Experience, and Inquiry. In E. Langran & J. Borup (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1168–1172). Washington, D.C., United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Search in Google Scholar

Sonalkar, N., Mabogunje, A., Pai, G., Krishnan, A., & Roth, B. (2016). Diagnostics for design thinking teams. In Design Thinking Research (pp. 35–51). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-19641-1_4 Search in Google Scholar

Suzianti, A., & Atthousi, H. N. (2019). Implementation of design thinking approach in designing learning support tools in the classroom for hearing impaired person (case study: Elementary school students in SLB-B Santi Rama). ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 75–80. 10.1145/3332324.3332338 Search in Google Scholar

Taheri, M., Unterholzer, T., Hölzle, K., & Meinel, C. (2016). An educational perspective on design thinking learning outcomes. In ISPIM Innovation Symposium (p. 1). The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM). Search in Google Scholar

Thoring, K., & Müller, R. M. (2011). Understanding the Creative Mechanisms of Design Thinking: An Evolutionary Approach. Proceedings of the Second Conference on Creativity and Innovation in Design , 137–147. 10.1145/2079216.2079236 Search in Google Scholar

Valentim, N. M. C., Silva, W., & Conte, T. (2017). The students’ perspectives on applying design thinking for the design of mobile applications. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering and Education Track (pp. 77–86). IEEE Press. Search in Google Scholar

Vaughn, M. (2018). How Making and Makerspaces Promote Healthy Mindsets for Learning (p. 8). Search in Google Scholar

van de Grift, T., & Kroeze, R. (2016). Design Thinking as a Tool for Interdisciplinary Education in Health Care. Academic Medicine , 91 (1), 1234–1238. 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001195 Search in Google Scholar

von Thienen, J., Meinel, C., & Nicolai, C. (2014). How design thinking tools help to solve wicked problems. In Design thinking research (pp. 97–102). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-01303-9_7 Search in Google Scholar

von Thienen, J., Royalty, A., & Meinel, C. (2017). Design thinking in higher education: How students become dedicated creative problem solvers. In Handbook of research on creative problem-solving skill development in higher education (pp. 306–328). IGI Global. 10.4018/978-1-5225-0643-0.ch014 Search in Google Scholar

von Thienen, J., Clancey, W., Corazza, G., & Meinel, C. (2017). Theoretical Foundations of Design Thinking. Part I: John E. Arnold’s Creative Thinking Theories. In Theoretical Foundations of Design Thinking (pp. 13–40). IGI Global. Search in Google Scholar

von Thienen, J., Meinel, C., & Corazza, G. E. (2017). A short theory of failure. In Electronic Colloquium on Design Thinking Research (Vol. 17, pp. 1–5). Search in Google Scholar

Watson, A. D. (2015). Design Thinking for Life. Art Education , 68 (3), 12–18. 10.1080/00043125.2015.11519317 Search in Google Scholar

Wright, G., & West, R. (2010). Using Design Thinking to Improve Student Innovation. In J. Sanchez & K. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2010--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 391–395). Orlando, Florida, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Search in Google Scholar

Wrigley, C., & Straker, K. (2017). Design thinking pedagogy: The educational design ladder. Innovations in Education and Teaching International , 54 (4), 374–385. 10.1080/14703297.2015.1108214 Search in Google Scholar

Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly , 26 (2), 13–23. Search in Google Scholar

Yeager, D. S., Romero, C., Paunesku, D., Hulleman, C. S., Schneider, B., Hinojosa, C., … Dweck, C. S. (2016). Using Design Thinking to Improve Psychological Interventions: The Case of the Growth Mindset During the Transition to High School. Journal of Educational Psychology , 108 (3), 374–391. 10.1037/edu0000098 Search in Google Scholar

Zientek, L. R., Werner, J. M., Campuzano, M. V., & Nimon, K. (2018). The use of Google Scholar for research and research dissemination. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development , 30 (1), 39–46. 10.1002/nha3.20209 Search in Google Scholar

© 2019 Stefanie Panke, published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Public License.

• X / Twitter

Supplementary Materials

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

Journal and Issue

Articles in the same issue.

• Arts & Culture
• Civic Engagement
• Economic Development
• Environment
• Human Rights
• Social Services
• Water & Sanitation
• Foundations
• Nonprofits & NGOs
• Social Enterprise
• Collaboration
• Design Thinking
• Impact Investing
• Measurement & Evaluation
• Organizational Development
• Philanthropy & Funding
• Current Issue
• Sponsored Supplements
• Global Editions
• In-Depth Series
• Stanford PACS
• Submission Guidelines

Design Thinking for Higher Education

To meet the challenges of a new era, universities should redesign their core functions while also creating capacities to reach emerging and underserved markets. Open access to this article is made possible by BYU-Pathway Worldwide & ASU's Center for Organization Research and Design.

• order reprints
• related stories

By Clark G. Gilbert, Michael M. Crow & Derrick Anderson Winter 2018

Higher education has entered into an era of transition. Changing student demographics, rapidly evolving stakeholder demands, and new technologies are requiring universities to reconsider abiding assumptions about geography, time, and quality. We expect that in the coming years, long-standing models of higher education that prefer tradition and stability will be supplemented, if not displaced, by new models that embrace organizational innovation, responsivity, and adaptation.

Design thinking offers important pathways for shaping these important new models. Organizational change can embody deliberate choice that purposefully shapes the object and direction of the change itself. A design perspective suggests that there are architectural choices to be made about what the organization seeks to accomplish and how it is organized to achieve those ends. Many industries, especially higher education, confront challenges from both legacy and emerging markets. Few universities, if any, should be willing to ignore one market in favor of the other, since legacy and emerging markets are both vital and can play important roles in fulfilling higher education’s social mission.

We have found that a dual transformation design strategy has proved especially effective for addressing both legacy and emerging markets. According to this approach, operations acting in parallel—one to develop strategies that optimize the core organization to become more responsive to the new profile of demands it faces, and a second to design and implement disruptive innovations that provide a basis for future growth, agility, and responsivity. 1 We provide here a set of recommendations for how dual transformation can be implemented in higher education.

While we reference many colleges and universities, we focus on how our own institutions, Brigham Young University-Idaho and Arizona State University , have embraced these principles of transformation. These two institutions are important as case studies for their similarities as much as their differences. Brigham Young University-Idaho (BYU-Idaho) is a private religious four-year college established less than two decades ago from the dramatic reorganization of a distinguished residential junior college. Alternatively, Arizona State University (ASU) is a comprehensive public research university born from a regional teachers’ college that now stands out among national universities for its commitment to both access and excellence.

Despite these important historical and structural differences, both universities have adopted design models that facilitate innovation along multiple, seemingly competing trajectories. Both are committed to the success of all students. And both have undergone transformation in their efforts to be continuously responsive to the new spectrum of challenges facing higher education.

Tech Meets the Medieval University

Knowledge is the core of higher education. The roots of modern higher education date back to 11th-century Europe, where the first universities were formed from guilds of student practitioners and expert instructors. In this system, knowledge was accumulated by experts and passed to apprentices, a tradition that to this day informs the self-governing, faculty-centric nature of university design.

Tradition casts a long shadow over higher education. For generations, universities have been able to fulfill their scientific and socioeconomic missions by replicating past success. As a consequence, many of today’s colleges and universities are internally driven by the same structures of power and decision making over resources, the means of production, and sources of authority and legitimacy. Thus, the design logic that has prevailed in higher education can sometimes encourage uniformity and discourages innovation. From the number of books in libraries to the number of hours that students spend in seated lectures to what constitutes a degree, there are widespread pressures to conform.

This rigorous standardization has served higher education well until this point. It helped ensure quality through centuries of upheaval marked by the rapid proliferation of new institutions. However, the modern era demands greater flexibility and innovation. Factors that aim to ensure quality, such as accreditation, must avoid becoming too focused on examining a narrow set of academic processes. An overemphasis on process conformity arguably limits exploration, differentiation, and, in some cases, even system-wide quality.

What’s more, the challenges facing higher education are historically unique. Rapid, ubiquitous, and accelerating technological progress is now part of the human condition. While intergenerational technological progress has been observed since the industrial revolution, the benefits of progress have primarily owed to the wealthy. But we are swiftly approaching the point where the benefits of technological advancement will (or through design choices easily could) reach everyone, even the poor.

We also know that society’s capacity to absorb new technologies is growing. While telephones took 25 years to be adopted by 10 percent of the American population a century ago, tablet computers achieved that level of market penetration within five years. 2 And while the personal computer reached one quarter of the American population in 16 years, the Internet took only seven. 3

As a consequence of rapid technological progress and the increased capacity to integrate new technologies into already complex social systems, we now have greater access to information and tools to collect, transmit, and process information. In years past, trade skills could be expected to transfer from generation to generation. Today it is estimated that 65 percent of schoolchildren will work in a job or career that doesn’t presently exist. 4 For the first time in human history, how people live and work is fundamentally changing within the duration of a single lifespan or less.

Coupled with widespread technological change are steadily increasing expectations for social mobility. According to a recent report by the Brookings Institution, the global middle class is growing by about 140 million people per year and accounted for approximately 3.2 billion people at the end of 2016. Yet, in the United States, real access to college, measured in terms of student success and completion, remains the province of wealthy families. While college attendance for students in the bottom quartile of family income has increased from 28 to 45 percent since 1970, this figure is dwarfed by the 82 percent of students from families in the top quartile who attend college.

In terms of college graduation, the gap is even more dramatic: 77 percent of US students from the top family income quartile will go on to earn a bachelor’s degree by the age of 24, compared with just 9 percent of students from the bottom quartile. 5 In other words, students from the highest-income families in America are eight times more likely to graduate from college than students from the poorest families. Thus, the capacity of American higher education to contribute to American democracy is inherently limited, arguably by design.

Moving Toward Design Solutions

Taken together, these technological and sociological trends suggest that in maintaining their value to society, many colleges and universities will need to teach new material to new types of students at new, large scales. Doing so will require entirely new design models. However, in the face of rapid social change, the trend among many in higher education has been to reinforce traditional models. Some of this active entrenchment comes from pouring resources into technology that perpetuates the traditional classroom model and fails to harness the unique benefits of online and distance learning. University leaders also choose to invest in amenities and efforts to bolster rankings in order to increase enrollment—at the expense of innovations with long-term, real student impact.

We believe that the problems that beset colleges and universities are the result of failures to lead design-driven adaptation. As a first step in formulating design solutions, we recommend viewing the challenges posed by both legacy and emerging markets as independent ones, and assigning specific responsibility for innovation for each challenge to differentiated functions of the university. While this is only one approach, it offers important opportunities to reinvigorate the core of the academic institution while allowing new organizations to explore and innovate areas that are either ignored or needlessly bound by tradition.

In general terms, the dual transformation framework we advocate encourages organizations to embark on two separate but carefully connected efforts. Transformation A is a redesign of the core organization to improve capacities in teaching and research. Transformation B entails carefully designing a capacity to respond to emerging opportunities or social demands. In the context of higher education, through Transformation A, academic organizations must lower the costs of (or even exit) those offerings that do not sufficiently differentiate them and invest in areas that will reposition core teaching and research in ways that will drive competitive advantage in an ever-changing landscape. 6 Thus, Transformation A is about deliberate choice that every university confronts, where failure to choose is a de facto choice for expensive mediocrity.

Transformation B, by contrast, should be treated as a distinct opportunity focused on entirely new models and separate student markets. Examples of Transformation B innovations include online learning, distance education, and other forms of increased access for students. The higher education sector offers numerous case studies of institutions that have undertaken successful transformations along one or another of these dimensions. A smaller number of cases—including BYU-Idaho and ASU—provide examples of successful transformation along both dimensions.

Transformation A in Differentiated Research

While not all universities are research intensive, those that are can achieve dramatic gains in research productivity by focusing on their core strengths and building up programs in which they have natural advantages. Since 2002, when this paper’s coauthor Michael Crow became its president, Arizona State University has increased research expenditures by a factor of four, constituting the highest growth rate of any university research enterprise in the United States. But even as it has expanded its research investment, it has done so by consistently considering “place.” For 15 years, ASU has strategically increased capacity in fields that are accessible in and relevant to Arizona and the Phoenix metropolitan area, such as water scarcity and resource management, solar and thermal energy technologies, and sustainable urban development; merged programs and departments to create new synergies—for example, fusing geology and astronomy into a School of Earth and Space Exploration; and employed the participation of key industries in sponsored projects such as ASU LightWorks, a multidisciplinary effort pursuing breakthroughs in solar energy and sustainable fuels. 7

As a consequence of executing a carefully designed strategy, the research enterprise at ASU has expanded from approximately $123 million in FY2002 to nearly $520 million in FY2016 with remarkable efficiency. For example, the size of the faculty has remained nearly constant since 2002. According to recent data from the National Science Foundation, ASU now ranks tenth of 724 universities without medical schools in total research expenditures—ahead of California Institute of Technology, Princeton University, and Carnegie Mellon University.

But more than simply expanding research investment, ASU has chosen to differentiate itself from its peers by bringing to its research clarity of purpose through a focus on use-inspired research. Accordingly, for ASU, the notion of “place” is not just geographic; it relates also to seeking a unique thematic position within the broader national innovation system. Other universities have also bene ted from committing themselves to a thematic interpretation of place. For example, Rockefeller University has achieved and maintained its status as a global leader in biomedical research and training while operating pursuant to its motto, “Science for the benefit of humanity.” And Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, has incorporated the cultural and religious priorities of its Latter-Day Saints community to pursue a leadership role in research pertaining to religious freedom, family social science, and poverty alleviation.

In pursuing design strategies for research differentiation, universities assess the promise of a research enterprise relative to their unique institutional assets rather than muddling through a medley of scientific fields where their capacity to maintain the path of academic inquiry becomes fragmented. As a consequence, new lines of inquiry can be discovered, and universities with otherwise limited resources can assume leadership roles in new disciplinary fields.

Transformation A in Teaching and Learning

On the teaching side, many universities have unfortunately responded to rising costs and decreasing state support by increasing selectivity or passing an excessive share of instructional costs to students and their families. Whether through high costs or highly selective admission standards, exclusivity narrows the pool of admitted students to those who are almost certain to succeed. Instead, we think universities should be de ned by who they include and how those institutions improve their students’ chances of success.

Accordingly, Transformation A calls for carefully planned innovations that allow for gains in student outcomes without succumbing to the magnetism of exclusivity. For example, rather than increasing selectivity and turning away students who are less likely (or unlikely) to graduate, the University of California, Riverside (UCR), has made inclusivity a core part of its identity: 57 percent of UCR students are low income (federal Pell Grant eligible) or first-generation students. Notwithstanding the abundance of evidence proving that these students are less likely to succeed, federal data show that 90 percent of UCR students persist after their freshman year and 68 percent of students graduate in six years—26 points higher than the national average.

The reasons for UCR’s success graduating students includes a combination of targeted financial aid for needier students (students with a family income under $80,000 per year pay no tuition); 8 a robust suite of student services, which emphasize peer ties between students through learning communities; and opportunities for undergraduate students to partner in faculty-led research. (More than 50 percent of undergraduates undertake a research experience.) 9 By taking a different tack from competing institutions, UCR has shown that it is possible to maintain robust growth, hold down costs, and drive success for students of all demographics.

BYU-Idaho has also undertaken a major transformation of its teaching enterprise. Created in 2000, BYU-Idaho grew out of Ricks College, a two-year junior college, to become a four-year, bachelor’s-degree-granting institution that primarily focuses on access, student success, and teaching excellence. Designed to “have a unique role and be distinctive from” its sister institutions within the BYU system, BYU-Idaho has managed to grow its enrollment and keep costs low by upending the traditional academic calendar in favor of a three-track, year-round calendar. Applicants to BYU- Idaho are assigned to a cohort that begins in either a fall, winter, or spring term and remain with their cohort through graduation, with each cohort assigned to attend only two of the three terms.

Since the new system was announced in 2000, total annual enrollment on campus has increased from fewer than 15,000 to more than 30,000 students, while the relative cost per student has declined. In other words, because each cohort attends only two of three available semesters each year, one-third of the students are away from campus at any point in time—effectively growing the capacity of the school by 50 percent without adding infrastructure. Rather than taking the downtime that many schools have in the summer, BYU-Idaho operates year-round, always at full capacity. The university keeps the system flexible by allowing students to take online courses at any time, regardless of their cohort calendar, and offering qualified students the option to enroll year-round to accelerate graduation. 10

Not only has its focus on a teaching-oriented faculty and a three-track calendar addressed the affordability and access challenges of higher education, but also it has enabled BYU-Idaho to zero in on student outcomes. Even though the university has a policy of virtual open enrollment and more than 50 percent of its students receive federal financial aid, BYU-Idaho consistently has nearly a 20 percent higher graduation rate than the national average, well above that of its regional peers. 11 Moreover, BYU-Idaho students graduate in the 82nd percentile in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) for critical thinking and writing, while their incoming credentials suggest that they should only achieve the 65th percentile. For BYU-Idaho, the focus on teaching has not only expanded access and reduced cost but also increased quality by concentrating on meaningful student outcomes.

At ASU, teaching is organized according to four Teaching and Learning Realms. Realm 1 pertains to campus-based immersion learning where 3,400 faculty members interact closely with more than 71,000 students. Realm 2 includes fully online delivery of degree programs offered by campus colleges and departments. Realm 3 provides open scale digital immersion learning (sometimes termed massive open online courses or MOOCs), and Realm 4 focuses on “education through exploration,” including virtual field trips, game-based learning, and personalized learning.

Technology-driven enhancements cut across all four Realms, but the focus of Transformation A is Realm 1, where carefully implemented strategies have allowed for dramatic growth in enrollment, especially of disadvantaged populations, along with improvement in retention and graduation rates. For example, ASU’s eAdvisor platform, implemented in 2007, uses assorted data points to help keep students on track for degree completion and automatically implements interventions when a student fails to progress. Other innovations are structural, such as partnerships with community colleges that accommodate the careful preparation of students and seamless transfer pathways. Such innovations have helped ASU increase the number of degrees awarded at its metropolitan campuses from 14,444 in 2007-08 to 18,254 in 2015-16, while also raising its public profile. ASU has received a top-five ranking in best-qualified graduates from The Wall Street Journal in 2010; a top-10 ranking in graduate employability from the Global University Employability Survey in 2016; and a number-one ranking in the United States for innovation in 2016, 2017, and 2018 by U.S. News & World Report .

Transformation B for New Opportunities

While Transformation A innovations focus on the established core functions of universities, Transformation B generates entirely new educational models that could not emerge meaningfully from the traditional academic organization. In higher education, this is often manifested through online programs targeting nontraditional student populations or new technology-driven modes of learning.

Prior to the 1980s, higher education was focused almost exclusively on young learners. But now students who attend four-year institutions and live on campus make up only a portion of all US undergraduates. Of the more than 20 million undergraduates attending college in the United States, more than 40 percent are over the age of 25, and this figure is predicted to increase, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.

Technological and social changes are also driving the emergence of new student demographics from diverse locations as well as a broader spectrum of socioeconomic backgrounds. Many of these students face barriers such as the need to balance studies with work and family obligations, high educational costs, transportation and logistical difficulties, a lack of access to information about educational opportunities, and a lack of guidance tailored to their unique needs. Many of these barriers also correspond to the ways in which these students learn that are fundamentally different from the experience of traditional campus-bound college students. For example, midcareer students bring to the classroom work experiences that not only are foreign to traditional students but may be the exact experiences that the classroom is preparing them to confront.

Southern New Hampshire University stands out as an example of a forward-thinking institution that reorganized itself around online education to reach the nontraditional student market. Founded in 1932 as the New Hampshire Accounting and Secretarial School, SNHU since 1995 has expanded its reach to nontraditional students worldwide with the founding of an online distance learning program, SNHU Online. Within six years of launch, the program included students from 23 time zones. Today, as a consequence of the success of SNHU Online, the university enrolls about 85,000 students. Most recently, SNHU launched College for America , a subsidiary nonprofit institution that offers nontraditional learners degrees in competency-based tracks, wherein students advance by demonstrating proficiency through applied projects rather than traditional coursework.

SNHU Online was created as a differentiated organization dedicated to serving the unique demands of emerging online markets but carefully connected to the core university for the assurance of quality. This strategy of establishing a separate organization with careful integration with the core university is not unique. Even in major public universities where significant success with online education has occurred, it has often come when leaders have been willing to create distinctive organizations that could focus not only on the new models tied to online learning but also on the distinctive needs of online students.

Pennsylvania State University is one of the largest universities in the United States, and serving nontraditional students from Pennsylvania’s rural population has long been a part of its identity. In 1998, Penn State launched its World Campus , one of the nation’s first online programs, which has since grown to o er 125 degrees, certificates, and minors and now has more than 12,000 students enrolled in all 50 states and more than 50 countries. 12 In 2013, Penn State announced that it would invest $20 million to facilitate the expansion of World Campus, which it plans to grow to 45,000 students by 2023. 13

Like SNHU Online, World Campus exists as a separate unit of the university with carefully designed integrations with other core university units. A key feature of the World Campus that contributes to its business success and 95 percent student-satisfaction rate is the program’s integration with central academic units through revenue sharing. 14 When students enroll in World Campus courses in a given subject, the college that offers the course keeps a portion of the discretionary revenue, providing incentives for academic units to promote and accommodate World Campus growth and ensure that students receive the same level of support as on-campus students. In recent years, the World Campus has played a critical role in growing Penn State’s system-wide enrollment even as population decreases in rural areas and drastic decreases in state funding threaten the viability of its branch campuses. 15

Other universities have taken a more targeted approach to growing specific nontraditional markets. For BYU-Idaho, this began with a focus on reaching students who were not being served by the existing BYU system because they did not feel that they could afford college or because, in some cases, they did not feel that they could succeed. In 2009, the university launched a new program called Pathway to target these students. It provides a one-year preparatory experience to ready students for college.

Rather than teaching traditional general education courses, the program focuses on study skills and self-organization. Instead of the traditional freshman English and math, the program teaches (to similar outcomes) résumé and cover letter writing, and family financial literacy. The students work through the material in interactive, cohort-based online courses and then gather weekly in small groups at local religious centers. While the program started with just 50 students in three pilot locations, today it has grown to reach tens of thousands of students in more than 500 locations around the world.

Similarly, BYU-Idaho’s online degree programs start with certificates and associate degrees, rather than maintaining the almost exclusive focus on bachelor’s degrees at more traditional universities. This has allowed many students to advance more quickly in the workforce and access a more applied curriculum than a traditional campus-centric model of higher education would do. It is important to note that both the Pathway and online degree programs were structured as separate operating entities within BYU-Idaho so they could focus on the distinctive needs of these online students. By helping students build confidence in their early academic efforts, pricing the program at less than $75 a credit hour, and allowing students to access education locally, the Pathway program and the BYU-Idaho online degree programs have grown to more than 35,000 students annually. This combined annual enrollment now exceeds the total annual student enrollment of the residential campus in Rexburg, Idaho. This past February, BYU-Idaho’s governing board elected to create a new institution, BYU-Pathway Worldwide, to focus on serving the needs of these nontraditional students.

Transformation B at ASU cuts across multiple realms of teaching and learning, each pushing further into the frontiers of innovation in higher education. Like BYU-Idaho, ASU’s Transformation B is coordinated primarily through an independent unit dedicated to the cultivation of technology-intensive disruptive ventures. ASU founded this unit as EdPlus . In what is termed Teaching and Learning Realm 2, traditional undergraduate and graduate degrees are offered in online formats. Since its inception in 2009, ASU Online (now operated under the umbrella of EdPlus) has gone from just under 1,000 students in five programs to nearly 26,000 students in more than 100 fully online programs. Through Realm 2, instructional designers connect faculty expertise to the unique learning needs of online degree seekers. This enables ASU to be responsive to nontraditional learners. It can also facilitate rapid, scalable response to very specific opportunities. For example, through an innovative partnership with Starbucks, ASU is on track to provide degrees to 25,000 Starbucks employees (or partners) by 2025. 16

ASU’s Teaching and Learning Realms 3 and 4 venture further into the frontiers of university innovation. ASU’s Global Freshman Academy (GFA) is the chief effort in Realm 3. In partnership with the MIT/Harvard University nonprofit venture edX, GFA is a massive open online course (MOOC) platform. Existing MOOC platforms offer certifications or badges for completed courses, but GFA is the first to offer course credit from an accredited university. GFA is also priced affordably for learners around the world—less than $200 per credit hour—and students pay for course credit only after passing the course and only if they want the optional university credit. Initial enrollment in the first 10 GFA courses exceeded 350,000 students.

ASU’s Realm 4 is dedicated to education through exploration. Similar to the research and development arm of a large company, Realm 4 at ASU aims to understand, integrate, and shape the newest technology-driven approaches to learning. Efforts here involve the development of platforms for game-based learning, adaptive learn- ing, and personalized learning. For example, one Realm 4 project, driven in part by ASU’s Center for Education Through eXploration (ETX), is the “immersive virtual field trip” or iVFT. This project uses digital photo, video, satellite, and map technologies to capture the experiences of eld scientists and share them with learners through interactive tools. It is but one of many potential ways that the uni- versity can expand the number and kinds of students it reaches, and the means by which they can learn.

Higher education in the United States has entered a new era shaped by profound social and economic challenges and historically unique technological acceleration. To confront these challenges, tradition, replication, and standardization are not enough. Design thinking offers an important pathway for transforming universities into adaptive institutions that can carry out the important work of effectively responding to legacy and emerging markets. Although design thinking and strategic thinking are often tightly coupled, no amount of strategy can remedy an organization whose design is incapable of responding to the full spectrum of problems it faces.

University leaders who would risk dual transformation are required to exercise full commitment to multiple, potentially conflicting visions of the future. They undoubtedly confront skepticism, resistance, and inertia, which may sway them from pursuing overdue reforms. We recognize that this marks a tumultuous time in the history of American higher education, but we see it as an opportunity. America’s leaders in higher education must rise to the challenge of creating new, innovative design models for their universities—for the betterment of their institutions, higher education, and society as a whole.

Support  SSIR ’s coverage of cross-sector solutions to global challenges.  Help us further the reach of innovative ideas.  Donate today .

Read more stories by Clark G. Gilbert , Michael M. Crow & Derrick Anderson .

SSIR.org and/or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and to our better understanding of user needs. By closing this banner, scrolling this page, clicking a link or continuing to otherwise browse this site, you agree to the use of cookies.

• LSE Authors
• Subscribe to our newsletter

Tony Morgan

Lena jaspersen, may 4th, 2022, design thinking in higher education: preparing the next generation of graduates.

1 comment | 27 shares

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

Higher education institutions are often accused of not preparing students well to join the workforce. With the advance of artificial intelligence soft skills such as problem solving, creativity and empathy will gain in importance, as collaboration will be in high demand.  Tony Morgan and Lena Jaspersen suggest that centring training courses around interdisciplinary team-based projects is the best approach for universities to face this challenge.

Professional bodies and industry leaders often suggest there’s a mismatch between the theoretical knowledge students acquire at university and the skills they need to succeed in a job after graduation.

For example, Denise Jackson has described how higher education institutions have been consistently blamed for soft skill deficiencies, while Fatima Suleman’s work highlights the growing body of literature which illustrates the pressures on higher education institutions to better prepare their graduates for the world of work. Indeed, while gaining in-depth knowledge of a core degree discipline and demonstrating the ability to learn is important, more foundational ‘employability’ skills are key for graduates’ success when entering the labour market.

There are many uncertainties about what the future of work may hold. What will a graduate role in 2030 or 2040 even look like? One thing seems certain: there will be more currency for things people can do that machines and artificial intelligence cannot (or at least cannot do as well). Creativity, problem solving and empathy, for example. With the world facing huge challenges, the ability to collaborate across disciplines and cultures will be in high demand.

A 2020 survey by the World Economic Forum (WEF) highlights a range of skill areas that become increasingly important, including ‘critical thinking and analysis,’ ‘problem-solving,’ ‘self-management’ and ‘working with people’. An analysis of UK graduate recruitment vacancies concurs. The most frequently requested skill areas in recent vacancies include ‘communication,’ ‘organisation,’ ‘problem-solving’ and ‘teamworking’.

So, how can universities (and employers who hire graduates) enable and support their students (or early career professionals) to develop such skills?

We believe one of the most effective ways is by designing and delivering training courses which centre around interdisciplinary team-based projects, where diverse team members work together to address real-world problems. In addition, the set of techniques collectively known as Design Thinking offer an incredibly versatile approach for supporting this. Used by companies like Google, Apple, IBM and many others, Design Thinking is a user-centric and iterative approach to defining and tackling problems.

For the past five years, we’ve been running the ‘ Innovation Thinking and Practice ’ module at the University of Leeds. The module was developed working directly with industry to gain insight into the skills graduate recruiters were looking for but felt were often lacking in their graduate hires.

In the module, students from across the university are assigned to work in diverse teams. Each team is assigned a real-world challenge to solve. The challenges are developed in partnership with industry experts from local, national, and international private, public sector or third sector organisations. Increasingly, the challenges include a sustainability aspect.

During the module, the student teams work through a series of facilitated activities following the design thinking process: they research the challenge, develop empathy with those facing it, generate and evaluate ideas, develop prototypes, and articulate value.

Each team encounters problems along the way. Some of these problems may occur naturally. Others have been designed into the module for students to solve, so they can learn about the importance of iterative approaches in innovation and problem solving. This also helps them to build resilience, which is one of the top skills for 2025 highlighted by the WEF .

Students complete the module by pitching their projects to a panel of industry and academic experts and by writing an individual report, reflecting on what they’ve learned and how they can apply this learning in the future. Each year, we document some of the students’ achievements (see 2020 , 2021 , 2022 ). We hear from alumni who have used their learning to great effect in graduate roles as well as setting up their own businesses; and the module was shortlisted at the 2021 UK Times Higher Education awards .

Keen to do something practical to enable others to benefit from our experience, we have written a book that walks students and practitioners through all the steps necessary to deliver a team-based project to address a real-world innovation challenge and, critically, to develop key employability skills, along the way.

One of the many inputs we’ve taken on board was that students want direct insight from a range of industry and academic experts. As a consequence, each chapter includes expert interviews on specific topics. Interviewing expert practitioners like Doug Dietz (whose ground-breaking design thinking work in healthcare has transformed the experiences of child patients), Jeanne Liedtke (who has written and taught extensively on the topic), and others.

To close, we’re not arguing the case for non-subject-specific degrees. However, universities can do more to supplement and improve them by giving their students access to interdisciplinary team-based modules. The opportunity to be immersed in a work-like environment, creatively solve problems, and develop the skills needed to impress during recruitment and at the start of their careers can only benefit students and their future employers.

Having obtained funding for further pedagogical research , we are now working with our colleague Louisa Hill on evidence-based guidelines for developing or improving interdisciplinary team-based modules with a focus on developing employability skills. So, watch this space as we will soon be able to tell you even more about the benefits of interdisciplinary team-based and challenge-driven learning! Until then, feel free to contact us on if you are interested in finding out more or collaborating on this or a related initiative.

• This blog post  is based on the book  Design Thinking for Student Projects .
• The post  expresses the views of its author(s), not the position of LSE Business Review or the London School of Economics.
• Featured image by  Sarah Pflug , under a Burst licence
• When you leave a comment, you’re agreeing to our  Comment Policy .

About the author

Tony Morgan is an Innovation leader who worked at IBM for over 20 years in senior client-facing roles including business unit Chief Innovation Officer and Innovation Centre Leader for a global bank. Tony used his experiences to create new innovation training courses in IBM and write a book focused on collaborative innovation aimed at employees and future leaders. Now, as an Associate Professor in Innovation Management Practice at Leeds University Business School, Tony works with students and companies to help them harness the power of innovation and Design Thinking approaches. Find him on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tonymorganuk/

Lena Jaspersen is an academic researcher who studies collaborative research and innovation at Leeds University Business School. Lena has co-authored several books on research methods and has published in leading academic journals. Together with Tony, Lena teaches students from across the university to develop their own innovation projects by engaging with industry leaders and policy makers. Find her on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lena-j-jaspersen-04a6b74/

Many thanks.keep up the good work

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Related Posts

Fifty things NOT to say to chronically ill people

May 13th, 2022.

To overcome gender bias, objective performance metrics are not enough

December 7th, 2017.

Business improvement districts bring benefits but lead to gentrification in London

February 16th, 2024.

Diversity is a fact; inclusion, a choice

March 8th, 2017.

Five tips for using design thinking to transform your academic practice

Jenny Moffett explains how embracing design thinking may offer ways to combat academic perfectionism and develop vital skills for navigating uncertain paths

Jenny Moffett

• More on this topic

You may also like

Popular resources

.css-1txxx8u{overflow:hidden;max-height:81px;text-indent:0px;} Analytical testing is the key to industry collaborations

Is it time to turn off turnitin, use ai to get your students thinking critically, taming anxiety around public speaking, emotions and learning: what role do emotions play in how and why students learn.

Design thinking, with its apparently “ mind-blowing ” and “ revolutionary ” properties, comes with an aura of hyperbole. And despite increasing application in higher education in recent years, the jury is still out: is design thinking a genuinely transformative process or just another education fad?

Design thinking is a set of processes, practices and attitudes that encourage teams to “think like designers”. In real terms, this describes a structured process that guides teams to work collaboratively on a problem or challenge, resulting in a high degree of creativity and – ultimately – practical solutions. Although the concept has been around for 20 to 30 years, it has more recently permeated a wide range of settings, including universities.

Last summer, working with a team of medical students, designers and researchers at RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences , we set out on our own design thinking journey. The end goal was to create a digital, educational “escape room” that would help medical students manage uncertainty.

• It’s time to tackle perfectionism head-on in the classroom
• Using design thinking to find solutions to the Sustainable Development Goals
• Using productive failure to activate deeper learning  

Like many others, our team followed the design thinking process developed at Stanford d.school :

• Empathise: understand the experiences of relevant individuals affected by the challenge
• Define: develop the challenge or problem faced by users
• Ideate: generate ideas through divergent thinking strategies
• Prototype: create early and multiple models of what might work
• Test: test and get feedback on prototypes  

We also embraced the idea of design thinking as a mindset . By engaging with design thinking we accepted that we would meet a certain amount of discomfort, because taking new, untrodden routes often involves experiences of failure and error.

As the months went by, I watched – with some surprise – as a game emerged from little more than a computer screen and our collective imagination. What surprised me even more, though, was the impact the process had on my ways of “thinking” and “doing”.

I saw that design thinking had fundamentally changed my practice as an academic, allowing greater comfort with ambiguity and imperfection, especially in sharing ideas with colleagues. This new domain felt like a stark contrast to “regular” academia. In teaching, there is an unspoken expectation that we should be knowledgeable and confident, able to “conquer” uncertainty. In research, we are valued for meticulous, precise approaches. While such skills and attributes are important, there are times when we need to take a different route. Creativity and invention require a very different skill set; one that can be guided by design thinking. In testing this out, here are five things I have learned:

Tip 1: When it comes to creativity, team culture is everything 

The creative process is a team sport and the right culture – one where team members feel safe to voice opinions, plus give and receive feedback – is a pre-requisite. The most creative, efficient teams are those that experience a team climate of psychological safety. When working on ideas with your team, take time to put people at ease, make the experience warm and inclusive from the beginning, make sure everyone feels heard.

Tip 2: When seeking fresh ideas, pay attention to the process 

Have you ever had an idea shot down with a “that would never work” comment? Although seemingly trivial, such remarks can reduce an individual’s likelihood to share ideas. Design thinking helps avoid this by separating idea generation from idea screening . Team members are first encouraged to come up with as many ideas as possible (“divergent thinking”) before critiquing these and narrowing them down (“convergent thinking”). When seeking ideas, break down the process into two stages and clearly outline each to the team.

Tip 3: Good ideas can be encouraged but not forced 

While design thinking provides a structure and setting for discussing ideas, the best ones may not emerge on the spot. Creativity often happens when you least expect it. It’s common to have “aha” moments when you are driving, exercising or even taking a shower. When you are struggling to solve a problem, step away from the desk and do something different. Build reflective, individual time into the process for the rest of the team.

Tip 4: Try out ideas, early and frequently 

Rapid prototyping – trying out small and unfinished versions of an idea – is a key feature of design thinking. It allows us to get early information about what works in practice. It also encourages the team to hold ideas lightly and not get over-attached. In academia we often feel a pressure to “polish” work – reports, papers, lesson plans etc – before sharing with others. However, when the right team climate is in place, it’s much more efficient to share rough drafts before investing time on, potentially, the wrong path.

Tip 5: Failure is difficult, but it gets better with practice 

While we’ve all heard the inspirational messages around failure (“FAIL is just the First Attempt In Learning!”), it can still feel unpleasant. Design thinking asks us to release unfinished, imperfect models for inspection and, by its very nature, invites us to risk exposing our inadequacies. This gets easier in time and with practice. Experiment with asking for early feedback on your work or ideas from an individual you trust, notice your reactions and look for the nuggets of gold in their advice.

It’s true there are times when design thinking isn’t the most appropriate choice. Working at a medical and health sciences university, I know that performing surgery and prescribing medication demands precision. But this is only part of the story. The culture of academia can predispose us to aim for perfection when what would better serve us are skills to manage incertitude and messiness. Whether working on a gnarly challenge with the team or equipping our students to face the demands of a changing workplace, design thinking represents a promising approach for academics.

Jenny Moffett is an educationalist at the Health Professions’ Education Centre, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin.

Analytical testing is the key to industry collaborations

A framework to teach library research skills, contextual learning: linking learning to the real world, how hard can it be testing ai detection tools, chatgpt’s impact on nursing education and assessments, how to tackle the phd dissertation.

Register for free

and unlock a host of features on the THE site

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 24 February 2024

Using design thinking for interdisciplinary curriculum design and teaching: a case study in higher education

• Chia-Chi Wang 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  307 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1867 Accesses

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

This study investigates the utilization of design thinking by a university instructor in the development and delivery of an interdisciplinary curriculum. It examines the challenges encountered and the coping strategies employed during the process. The research, conducted as a case study of an interdisciplinary program course at a university in southern Taiwan from September to December 2022, involved data collection through field observations, in-depth interviews, and document analysis. All data were transcribed verbatim, coded, and triangulated to enhance research validity. The findings suggest that design thinking serves as an effective methodology for interdisciplinary curriculum design and teaching. It emphasizes the integration of practice and application to facilitate students’ interdisciplinary collaboration and co-creation. Additionally, the study evaluates teaching strategies, with a focus on the role of visual tools, communication, and on-site observation. The insights gained from this research provide valuable perspectives on challenges in interdisciplinary teaching, particularly in a post-pandemic context. They guided the development of effective practices in Taiwan and beyond, addressing crucial aspects such as the roles of instructors, resource allocation, and the cultivation of interdisciplinary talent. The study emphasizes the continuous need for adaptation and the prioritization of depth in learning outcomes.

Similar content being viewed by others

Determinants of behaviour and their efficacy as targets of behavioural change interventions

What colour are your eyes? Teaching the genetics of eye colour & colour vision. Edridge Green Lecture RCOphth Annual Congress Glasgow May 2019

Impact of artificial intelligence on human loss in decision making, laziness and safety in education

Introduction.

Individuals and industries worldwide have encountered unprecedented challenges and changes in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is crucial for higher education to nurture future professionals capable of effectively addressing increasingly complex societal problems (Berasategi et al., 2020 ). With the proliferation of intricate global issues such as climate change, unemployment, healthcare, immigration, pollution, and safety (Hardy et al., 2021 ), interdisciplinary approaches have emerged as essential strategies. The surge in complex problems underscores the inevitability of interdisciplinary learning. Higher education, in response to these challenges, strives to cultivate skills that transcend traditional boundaries, including interdisciplinary thinking (Spelt et al., 2009 ). Major universities in Taiwan have demonstrated their commitment to promoting interdisciplinary education through mechanisms such as interdisciplinary courses, micro-credit courses, and credit programs. Interdisciplinary education aims to develop students’ boundary-crossing skills, fostering problem-solving, communication, collaboration, critical thinking, entrepreneurship, and innovative practices. The implementation of interdisciplinary cooperation in teaching and learning becomes a key focus in cultivating future talent and enhancing students’ integrated abilities.

Interdisciplinary learning involves transcending the boundaries of a single specific subject or field and providing students with connections and interactions between different subject areas. This interconnectivity helps them to understand the limitations and frameworks of their knowledge or skills and to integrate the knowledge of two or more disciplines to produce a cognitive advancement in ways that would have been impossible or unlikely through single disciplinary means (Spelt et al., 2009 ). It cultivates their ability to integrate different knowledge systems in facing complex problems in their careers or society. Moreover, interdisciplinary curriculum teaching significantly impacts instructors and learners, as compared to single-field curriculum teaching (Chang and Lin, 2019 ; McLaughlin et al., 2022 ; Spelt et al., 2009 ). Through interdisciplinary dialog, instructors can learn from others’ experiences or identify their weaknesses, promoting professional growth, enhancing their teaching and curriculum planning abilities, and guiding students to think and cooperate to solve problems. Meanwhile, students have opportunities for multi-faceted exploration, using their knowledge and skills in their professional fields and collaborating with students from other fields. Interdisciplinary education influences students’ learning styles and thinking patterns as they are exposed to different areas of expertise (Chen et al., 2017 ). Despite these benefits, instructors and learners face challenges in interdisciplinary collaboration. For instructors, the challenge lies in seamlessly integrating the cognitive and ideational aspects of individuals from diverse fields within the classroom, aiming for effective communication (Tsai, 2014 ). For learners, the challenges lie in communication problems arising from the heterogeneity of members’ backgrounds, the ratio of team leaders to experts, how consensus is formed, and the ongoing conceptual analysis and evaluation conducted during the process (Tang and Lin, 2011 ).

Design thinking (DT) represents a 21st-century skill aimed at generating timely solutions to complex and practical problems (Tan, 2017 ). Therefore, in the post-epidemic era, as the trend to cultivate interdisciplinary talent increases, this case study investigates how a university instructor uses design thinking to design and teach a university interdisciplinary curriculum in the context of a university interdisciplinary program. Specifically, we explore the challenges encountered and coping strategies during the development of the interdisciplinary curriculum and teaching practice, and the professional growth and reflection resulting from the process. Our findings can serve as a reference to promote interdisciplinary education.

Literature review

Interdisciplinary teaching models.

The term “interdisciplinary” is widely used to encompass a variety of activities related to communication, interaction, and integration among all disciplines. The dismantling of disciplinary boundaries characterizes interdisciplinary learning, and it can provide students with opportunities to engage and interact with different fields of study. The main objective of this approach is to guide students to gain a deeper understanding of the constraints and frameworks of their knowledge or skills while developing their capacity to comprehend and integrate different knowledge systems (Guo, 2008 ; Spelt et al., 2009 ). Students participating in interdisciplinary programs tend to develop a more holistic perspective and solution-oriented strategies rather than solely gaining content-specific knowledge from a single discipline. Interdisciplinary learning is aimed at cultivating multiple essential professional competencies, to address emerging social and employment challenges (Chang and Lin, 2019 ; Ivanitskaya et al., 2002 ; Repko, 2008 ; Repko and Szostak, 2021 ).

Previously, two inquiry-based teaching approaches, problem-based learning (PBL) and project-based learning (PjBL) were commonly used in interdisciplinary education (Majeski, 2005 ; Modo and Kinchin, 2011 ; Stentoft, 2017 ; Wróblewska and Okraszewska, 2020 ; Yang and Lin, 2015 ). These approaches differ in learning content, problem structure, and learning outcomes. For example, the PBL learning style is more divergent, guiding learners to form different sub-problems by setting out structurally ambiguous problems. On the other hand, PjBL is more convergent, forming sub-problems through perceiving different phenomena or exploring the impact of different variables (Yang et al., 2018 ).

More recently, interdisciplinary project-based learning (IPBL) has emerged. Like the approach businesses use to develop teams in multiple areas, IPBL provides sufficient training for teamwork and collaboration to students from different disciplines, preparing them to engage in complex technical, engineering, educational, and social projects. Students can promote their learning by contributing their strengths and resources (Carpenter et al., 2007 ; Johansen et al., 2009 ; Stozhko et al., 2015 ; Whitney, 2014 ). IPBL can help students develop creativity, overcome the barriers of disciplinary self-centeredness, facilitate the development of knowledge management processes, stimulate their interest and motivation in subject curricula, promote their participation in the learning process, and enhance their cognitive levels and satisfaction with learning outcomes (Biasutti and EL-Deghaidy, 2014 ; Yueh et al., 2015 ). Emphasizing teamwork and collaborative learning in interdisciplinary project teams can improve effective communication and problem-solving skills and prepare students for future community engagement and development in the real world. These benefits highlight the necessity, relevance, and importance of IPBL for interdisciplinary integration. Therefore, IPBL is considered an important model for cultivating relevant skills for students aiming to find their ideal professions (Hsu and Shiue, 2018 ).

However, these PBL learning modes have limitations in meeting students’ learning needs for engagement with increasingly broad and complex challenges. A new emerging interdisciplinary inquiry-based learning approach: design-based learning (DBL) was proposed (Yang et al., 2018 ). DBL was initially proposed by D. Nelson, and its concept is deeply influenced by J. Dewey’s philosophy, emphasizing learning through practical operation and action. It incorporates design concepts such as prototypes into the curriculum, innovating teaching methods to provide students with an integrated learning experience (Nelson, 2004 ). It combines “design thinking” and “design practice”, allowing students to explore and solve real-life problems through reflective learning processes and hands-on doing (Mehalik and Schunn, 2006 ). Design thinking (DT) is an iterative, human-centered approach to solving complex problems that have gained considerate popularity in business, education, medicine, etc. (Dukala et al., 2023 ; Li and Zhan, 2022 ; McLaughlin et al., 2022 ; Skywark et al., 2022 ). DT is frequently defined as the application of a designer’s sensitivity and techniques to align the requirements of individuals with what is technologically possible and what a feasible business strategy can transform into customer value and market opportunity (Brown, 2008 , p. 2). In the practical tasks of DBL, students are required to construct tangible artifacts, fostering higher-order thinking abilities and demonstrating creative, design, and decision-making thinking (Chen and Yang, 2020 ). Compared to PBL and PjBL, DBL places a greater emphasis on humanism, particularly focusing on the human-based problem-solving process, prototype testing, and iterative refinement stages (Wang, 2023 ; Yang et al., 2018 ). Therefore, using DBL as the core of interdisciplinary curriculum design and teaching is expected to be a concrete, feasible, and essential pedagogical strategy in the future.

Challenges and strategies in implementing interdisciplinary curriculum

Some interdisciplinary research has shown that implementing an interdisciplinary curriculum impacts instructors and learners significantly (Chang and Lin, 2019 ; McLaughlin et al., 2022 ; Spelt et al., 2009 ). For instructors, interdisciplinary dialog enables them to learn from others and identify their weaker areas, leading to professional growth and the ability to integrate knowledge from multiple fields. These benefits enhance their teaching and curriculum planning abilities and contribute to guiding students in their thinking and collaboration with a view to solving problems. Several aspects need to be considered when developing an interdisciplinary curriculum, including assessing the appropriateness of the course content, balancing different fields, encouraging creativity, collaborating with external partners, and addressing real-world problems and social trends. When designing interdisciplinary project courses, instructors should focus on how to teach the required hard skills for the topic, and as students begin to communicate with others, their need for soft skills becomes apparent. If instructors do not provide sufficient support, communication issues may hinder the development of hard skills. There is no need to distinguish between cultivating soft and hard skills during the learning process, as they are mutually beneficial.

However, without instructors providing scaffolding for these interactive processes, students may not automatically develop soft or hard skills in interdisciplinary project courses. Therefore, instructors engaging in interdisciplinary teaching must carefully consider how to offer guidance and scaffolding to students aiming to develop both hard and soft skills (Vogler et al., 2018 ). For learners, interdisciplinary learning provides opportunities for exploration from multiple perspectives, utilizing knowledge and skills from their field and collaborating with students from other fields. Interdisciplinary approaches prioritize the development of higher-order thinking skills, such as analysis, application, generalization, and forming meaningful connections between different disciplines. Although these approaches may be less effective than traditional methods in building in-depth knowledge of a single subject, they offer unique benefits that cannot be achieved through a single-subject focus (Ivanitskaya et al., 2002 ). Students who have received interdisciplinary education training, influenced by diverse ways of thinking in different fields, will have more diverse learning styles and thinking patterns (Chen et al., 2017 ).

In addition, implementing an interdisciplinary curriculum poses significant challenges. Instructors in higher education institutions often lack training in interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary education, viewing interdisciplinary project activities as intimidating, especially when they cut across different classes and disciplines (Vogler et al., 2018 ). Bridging cognitive and ideational gaps for effective communication among students from diverse fields in the classroom proves challenging (Tsai, 2014 ). Furthermore, successful interdisciplinary teaching requires close collaboration among scholars from different fields, and language and terminological differences between these fields commonly serve as barriers (Repko, 2008 ; Repko and Szostak, 2021 ). The skills involved in interdisciplinary learning are also challenging to teach or understand in the classroom (Katz and Martin, 1997 ). Therefore, instructors must design experiential activities to help students acquire relevant skills through hands-on learning. Learners may face time constraints due to their academic workload, semester schedules, financial support, or the necessity of taking on additional jobs, which can limit their ability to participate in and benefit from teaching activities (Ryser et al., 2009 ). Team collaboration may lead to communication problems arising from the heterogeneous backgrounds of members, the ratio of team leaders to team members, the formation of consensus and conceptual analysis during the process, and the evaluation of the project (Tang and Lin, 2011 ).

Based on the above, this case study delves into the development and delivery of an interdisciplinary curriculum within a university setting. It investigates the various instructional challenges encountered and strategies employed to nurture professional development and reflection, particularly in the unique circumstances of a university interdisciplinary curriculum post-pandemic. The insights derived from this study are intended to provide valuable guidance for the advancement of interdisciplinary education practices in Taiwan and beyond.

Participants

Research field and participants.

This case study focuses on an interdisciplinary-related course offered by an interdisciplinary program at a university in southern Taiwan. The study has received ethical approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee, Taiwan, confirming its adherence to ethical guidelines. The participants included one instructor, one teaching assistant, and 38 students enrolled in the course. In the interests of research ethics, they were asked to fill in the research informed-consent form voluntarily and also to freely decide whether to agree to include the previously collected data in the final research analysis to protect their rights and interests. The case instructor’s areas of expertise include cultural anthropology, material culture, globalization and localization, design and applied anthropology, and design thinking. The case instructor has taught this course for five semesters.

This course aims to cultivate students’ comprehensive abilities to apply design thinking across interdisciplinary domains. This includes solving real-world problems, enhancing communication skills, developing divergent and convergent thinking, understanding various stages of the design thinking process, strengthening empathy, conducting on-site observations, translating insights into practical designs, and acquiring practical skills for production, modification, and presentation of end products. The course has three main learning objectives: design thinking fundamentals, maker skills, and mid- and final-term projects. In the mid-term project, students must use the design thinking techniques learned in class to design games for children. For the final project, students must design creative playground equipment for the community and organize a two-day community play equipment exhibition. This course is a transdisciplinary curriculum primarily focusing on real-world scenarios, such as designing creative play equipment for children.

This study focuses on the dynamic process of designing and implementing interdisciplinary courses and emphasizes the use of design thinking methodology. We conducted classroom observations and interviews and collected documents throughout a semester to analyze and synthesize the data exploring various aspects of interdisciplinary course design and implementation. The research team conducted weekly classroom observations from September to December 2022. The research team interviewed the case instructor three times, and the case instructor recommended one student from each group for an interview. Interview locations were chosen for their quiet and comfortable environment and suitability for recording and note-taking. Open-ended interviews were conducted using semi-structured questions. Table 1 lists the case instructor and student information.

The research team

The research team consisted of a university faculty member, R1 (researcher), who teaches in a department related to education, and a master’s student, R2 (collaborative observer and interviewer), who works in a department related to education. R1 and R2 conducted classroom observations together, and R1 served as the primary interviewer during the interviews, with R2 conducting the collaborative interviews. The team conducted a member check meeting to analyze the data. R1 has 3 years of experience in interdisciplinary course design and teaching (since 2019) and has published two research papers on interdisciplinary course teaching.

The researcher distributed informed consent forms to the case instructor and students and proceeded with data collection only after obtaining their agreement. The data collection process was anonymous, and participants were informed that the collected data would only be used for academic research. The paper-based data would be placed in a locked cabinet, and a password would protect the electronic files to protect the participants’ privacy. The case instructors and students were also free to include previously collected data in the research analysis.

Instruments

Participant observation data.

Before starting the academic term, the researcher consulted with the case instructor to understand the curriculum, teaching context, student characteristics, observation focus and tools, and feedback session arrangements. During the teaching process, the researcher obtained written consent from the case instructor and students before conducting classroom observations and recording factual data about the case instructor’s teaching and student behavior. After the teaching period ended, the researcher held feedback sessions with the case instructor to clarify the ideas and achieve a consensus. The observed data were derived from two sources: (1) observation records and photos taken during class, and (2) non-specific observations, such as incidental behavior or conversations between the case instructor and students during data collection in the classroom.

Interview process and outline

Semi-structured interviews (Table 2 ) were the primary data collection method, and the entire interview process was recorded. The research team conducted interviews about the interdisciplinary course design and teaching experiences. The interviews with the case instructor focused on how to design and teach an interdisciplinary course, address teaching challenges, and professional growth and reflections during the process. The interviews with students focused on the impact of course design and teaching activities on their learning.

The interview content was transcribed verbatim and coded using NVivo 12 software to avoid disclosing the names of the research participants and other related privacy information. We used triangulation (Denzin, 1978 ) to enhance research validity (Maxwell, 1992 ). The data collection methods used to obtain the research data included interviews, observation records, and document data. “Data source triangulation” was adopted, inviting the case instructor, course students, and collaborative observers to participate in the study, to examine the data consistency. In addition, a recording pen was used to record data, to avoid missing or biased information. The researcher recorded interview and observation content in detail, carefully organized document data, and avoided over-inference to present the research’s validity.

Each research subject was given three codes: the first code represented their identity (R1: Researcher 1; TS: instructor S; SY: student Y); the second code represented the data type (I: Interview; O: Classroom observation and reflection); and the third code represented the date. For example, SW_I_20221228 indicates that student W was interviewed on December 28, 2022, and R1_O_20221006 indicates that Researcher 1 conducted classroom observation on October 6, 2022. During the data classification and formation of categories, the research team referred to the relevant literature and compiled primary categories. Sections of a similar nature and content were placed under the same relevant category. At the same time, member checks and peer reviews (Miles and Huberman, 1994 ) were conducted for the interview content. Analysis was stopped when the data began to show patterns and became increasingly stable.

Data analysis began in February 2023 and was divided into two stages. The first stage involved open coding, where the researcher conducted a preliminary analysis of three instructor interview transcripts, six student interview transcripts, nine researcher classroom observation records, and nine co-observer classroom observation records for 27 files. The first level of open coding generated 83 codes. In the second stage, based on the first level of coding, the researcher extracted the main codes through axial coding, resulting in 12 main codes. Examples of the codes are provided in Table 3 .

Results and discussion

Design and planning an interdisciplinary curriculum, using design thinking as a methodology for curriculum design.

Gaining insights into the pedagogical approaches and experiential aspects of design thinking in higher education enables educational institutions to enhance student learning, ensuring alignment with the demands of professionalism, personal development, and civic engagement (McLaughlin et al., 2022 ). The case instructor used the Stanford University D-School design thinking model to design and plan the interdisciplinary curriculum, consisting of five stages: “empathize”, “define”, “ideate”, “prototype”, and “test”. The “empathize” stage helped participants understand the importance of empathy and learn how to cultivate it. The “define” stage clarified the problem through common methods, such as summarizing the key points and establishing connections, making the design goals clearer. The “ideate” stage taught participants ideation techniques to transform problems into solutions. The “prototype” stage proposed ideas closer to the final solution and the creation of prototypes to obtain user feedback. Finally, during the “test” stage, participants were encouraged to implement their prototypes, assess their effectiveness, and verify their solutions, gaining a deeper understanding of the importance of thorough testing (Henriksen et al., 2017 ; Wang and Sung, 2019 ).

The case instructor guided university students through three complete cycles of design thinking across three projects: the “Design Thinking Mini-Workshop,” the “Mid-term Project,” and the “Final Project.” During the first cycle, in the third week of the course, the case instructor-led students in designing a chair for their partners as part of the Design Thinking Mini-Workshop. This phase aimed to familiarize students with two design thinking techniques—divergent and convergent thinking, five steps—empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test, and three criteria—desirability, feasibility, and viability. In the second cycle, the case instructor directed students to use cardboard as the material for designing board games targeting elementary school children. The design thinking process was employed, and children were invited to test and play with the game prototypes. By the end of the course, each group leveraged observations from the game field, interviews with children, and feedback on their gaming experiences to design innovative wooden play equipment for children. This culmination of efforts served as the third cycle, wherein the groups collaborated with “Taiwan Parks & Playgrounds for Children by Children” to organize a two-day park play equipment exhibition in a southern Taiwan administrative district.

As part of the three design thinking cycles, the case instructor set different assignments to help students practice the two techniques, five steps, three criteria, and related design thinking tools (Fig. 1 ). These assignments included observing and documenting children’s toys, observing and documenting children’s game ideas, learning woodworking skills, explaining sketches for the final project, creating prototypes for the final project, designing a poster to introduce the project, and completing a nine-square personal business model.

The correspondence chart of design thinking and interdisciplinary course tasks.

Balancing resources and real-world impact: challenges and strategies in extended interdisciplinary courses

The case instructor has a humanities and social sciences background and has taught this course five times since 2018. He is adept at conducting field observations and interviews in different contexts and has independently studied courses related to design thinking and industrial design. He has a strong interest in design and art and has conducted two years of ethnographic research into the maker community in Taiwan. The case instructor’s expertise lies in guiding students’ observations and interviews to discover the users’ needs. However, to overcome the limitations of his lack of technical expertise, he invited industry experts to co-teach and introduce external resources into the classroom.

TS: If students only stop at the proposing ideas stage, they will not see the final outcome, and the product cannot be iterated. Therefore, I hope that after completion, the students’ work can undergo another market test, and the complete production process can be recorded as an important memory for them. Also, if we want to do this, we need resources, which need to be related to the community if we want to use USR (University Social Responsibility: one project in Taiwan) … These outcomes are very expensive, including both the teaching of certain techniques, as well as giving students the opportunity to practice these techniques, for which you need tools, and every step costs money. If only proposals are made and no prototype is produced, the students’ understanding and perception of the entire project or their understanding of design thinking will not be deep enough. (TS_I_20230104)

As part of university-level interdisciplinary education, students were encouraged to solve real-world problems. The case instructor didn’t want students to only reach the proposal stage; he introduced more time, supported resources, and practical venues to establish a stronger connection between classroom content and the real world. Therefore, this course tended to be longer, and the holidays were often utilized. For example, the regular class time is three hours per week. However, during the later prototype production stage, students often used the holidays to make wooden playground equipment in rented venues. In addition, the resources needed to support classroom activities, such as professional guidance from industry experts, learning woodworking skills, mechanical equipment, wooden materials, and hourly fees, are costly. While balancing classroom learning and not allowing students to spend too much money, the case instructor must also administer the operation of the course before conducting a class. For example, he must apply for government project funding, invite corporate cooperation and sponsorship, contact primary schools for cooperation, and identify exhibition venues to ensure sufficient resources and venues for teaching.

Interdisciplinary teaching strategies and tools

Creating a culture of equitable instructor–student relationships through effective questioning and example-setting to foster classroom discussion.

During the first week of class, the case instructor told the students, “Don’t call me ‘instructor’ or ‘professor’, please call me C (the case instructor’s name) or coach. The reason is that I don’t want you to give up thinking, and I want to create an equal atmosphere in the classroom to encourage you to speak up more (R1_O_ 20220908).” During class, the case instructor is skilled in using questioning as a scaffold for student learning, often using “what”, “why”, and “how” to ask questions. Starting from the students’ experiences, the case instructor connects them to the concepts to be elaborated by the case instructor, to train students to think in more abstract ways.

TS: Have you ever experienced good design? Why was it good? What would happen if that design didn’t exist? How would you use that design to solve a problem if it were you?

TS: Next, I will introduce the inspiration and function of the EAT WELL product (a universal tableware design) through a crowdfunding video, which is mainly designed for patients with dementia. What is special about this tableware? What was the motivation behind creating it? What other special features were mentioned in the video? Was there any reference to the color used in other materials?… (R1_O_20220908)

During the process, the case instructor utilized questioning, scenario simulation, and discussions to facilitate students’ exploration of user needs, identification of underlying reasons, and generation of viable solutions through mutual discussion based on their life experiences or relevant cases. Subsequently, the case solutions were decided with a view to training students’ insights.

(During the class, a student was invited to simulate the perspective of an IDEO researcher role-playing a patient.)

TS: IDEO wants to improve the patient experience in Minnesota hospitals--starting with a change of perspective. (When you spend the whole day lying in bed in the hospital, all you can see is the ceiling.) So, once you change perspectives, what does the person see in the world?

TS: Why should the floor color in the hospital ward be divided into different areas?

TS: People can be in a more comfortable state, just like being at home. Although the hospital is also a public building, we also hope they will want to make patients feel comfortable when they see a doctor. (R1_O_20220929)

Encouraging the use of visual tools and vertical communication to facilitate dialog

The tools and methods commonly used in design thinking include ethnographic methods, personas, journey maps, brainstorming, mind maps, visualization, prototyping, experiments, and others (Micheli et al., 2019 ). These visualization tools allow users to engage in experiential learning and reflect on their actions (Elsbach and Stigliani, 2018 ). Therefore, using visualization tools for communication is crucial in design thinking. Significant disparities may exist due to individuals’ diverse cognitive and linguistic habits, especially in heterogeneous groups. Hence, in the second week of the course, the case instructor helped students establish a habit of using visual communication, extensively employing visual and graphic means to discuss issues, and encouraging students to conduct vertical communication after pasting their data on the wall, thereby making the process of design thinking more three-dimensional (Fig. 2 ).

TS: Please come up to the front with a pen and some sticky notes, and practice sharing and giving feedback to others. This process will help everyone develop the habit of team communication and collaboration.

(Students verbally share their observations on children’s game behaviors, while others give feedback using sticky notes.)

TS: Why do children want to play with this toy? Let’s think about it together. Did this child gain any value from playing with it?

S: This is a 7-year-old girl with a lively and imaginative personality. She plays a role-playing game with her own dolls, pretending to be a teacher and the students, because her mother does not buy her toys very often. (R2_O_20220915)

Peer feedback using sticky notes (R2_O_20220915).

The case instructor also considered explicitly teaching students how to integrate ideas from different sources and imparting basic teamwork skills to provide comprehensive support for interdisciplinary learning. Achieving consensus is often necessary for feedback or teamwork for decision-making. The case instructor suggested that students can use dot stickers to provide their opinions, and when there is disagreement, using them to vote is useful. Subsequently, students often used this method for group discussion in assignments.

The idea is that everyone provides an idea, and if we want to select one, we vote. I think we use voting because C (the case instructor) first taught us a “dot-sticking” method, and then I just changed it to being online and then voting. (SL_I_20221228)

The purpose of the prototype was to generate ideas and solve problems. Regarding communication, a picture is worth a thousand words, and a prototype is worth a thousand pictures (Wang and Sung, 2022 ). Therefore, the case instructor suggested that students use geometric elements such as triangles, circles, and squares to complete a basic three-dimensional structure of the work and only use red, blue, yellow, black, and white colors. The paper version is cut into triangles, circles, and squares for combination (Fig. 3 ).

Low-fidelity to high-fidelity prototypes (R1_O_20221027).

Experiential teaching activities: a study on site observation and user experience

Designers must observe, interview, or experience users’ daily lives to understand the users’ needs. The critical task of design thinking is to transform the observed or interviewed data into insights and create products and services that can improve people’s lives. Through empathy, designers can connect these insights with others’ perspectives and understand and feel the world through their experiences and emotions (Brown, 2009 ). However, this type of learning is not easy to teach or understand in the classroom. In interdisciplinary classrooms, instructors must design experiential activities that allow students to acquire relevant skills through experiential learning (Ryser et al., 2009 ). In this case, the case instructor asked students to observe children’s behavior in the playground (Fig. 4 ), interact with them, and help third and fourth-grade elementary school children design their dream backpacks. These all represent ways whereby students may observe children and explore their play needs.

Observation of children’s play behaviors at a play area (R1_O_20220929).

Progressive practice of the design Point of View (POV)

It is essential to define clearly the problem to be solved, to generate a design point of view (POV). A POV can help designers gain deeper insights into the research object and problem, including the users, needs, and insight elements, by organizing user needs that have not been met from the collected data. With a clear POV, designers can develop focused problem statements and generate high-quality solutions. Therefore, designers must analyze, observe, and discover data, form unique insights through an integrative interpretation of a large amount of data, and help other designers to move to the next stage through an actionable problem statement. There may be multiple insights, and the designer must select the insight that meets the current users’ needs (Liu, 2021 ).

When defining the problem, the case instructor used progressive exercise tasks from existing cases and field data collected by students to enable them to practice forming POVs and improve their problem-solving skills. The case instructor used practical business cases for students to practice writing a POV and compared the differences with a case POV.

TS: Please watch the “Lucky Iron Fish: Shape of Health” video. The locals in Cambodia suffer from iron deficiency, which often causes dizziness, miscarriage, lack of focus in children, osteoporosis, etc. If a method could be found to provide enough iron ions to Cambodians through their typical fish and rice meals, the problem of iron deficiency could be solved. The research discovered that using iron cookware during cooking could release iron ions and address iron deficiency. How can the locals willingly put a piece of iron into the pot during cooking when they cannot afford to use expensive iron pots? Please practice writing the POV for this case. (R1_O__20220929)

After gaining experience writing case-based POVs, students practiced writing POVs using observation data from children’s play areas and from conducting dream backpack design workshops with children (see Fig. 5 ).

POV exercise (R1_O_20221013).

During the practice, the case instructor reminded the students that questioning is crucial to uncovering needs, and observation can reveal other needs. At the same time, the case instructor used questioning to refine the quality of the students’ POVs.

S: The elementary school student’s original backpack is a Transformer with a hard shell. It has compartments on the left and right sides for storing umbrellas and water bottles.

TS: What are his expectations and difficulties in using the backpack?

S: He hopes it can be made easier to carry, as the hard shell makes it feel heavy on his back and waist. He wants it to look like a regular backpack and provide protection against bad guys.

TS: From this perspective, what needs might he have? He may be afraid of bullying and need protection and safety. (R1_O_20221006)

Through a progressive POV exercise, students can quickly discern a child’s play traits and tendencies from the types of games and play equipment they use. For example, a child inventing their own rules for playing a game indicates a more proactive and imaginative nature. A child drawing game equipment that involves shooting or destruction suggests a high need for stimulation. Conversely, more introverted children may require independent play equipment.

S: The elementary school students in our group drew slides, climbing nets, mazes, aggressive equipment, and obstacle courses. Therefore, our insights suggest they enjoy pursuing excitement, challenging limits, and continuous obstacle courses. (R1_O_20221020)

Collecting feedback for prototype testing and refinement

During the testing phase of the design thinking process, the main approach was to collect feedback from others to conduct testing and make revisions. Before testing, the case instructor invited students from other groups to provide feedback and suggestions on the prototype.

(Group feedback and questions after a board game proposal)

S1: Does just moving the cup provide enough hands-on experience for the children? The gameplay may be a bit monotonous; perhaps there could be more variation.

S2: What’s the difference between this and playing ping pong with yourself? What’s the selling point of this device to attract children to play? It feels like it could be made more exciting.

S3: How does the ball drop? Will the size be changed again?

S4: Chopsticks could be added to provide a barrier; otherwise, the ball drops too quickly.

TS: Does someone need to throw the ball from the top and someone catch it at the bottom? Maybe this could be less interactive and physical, and the gameplay could be more diverse. If more of these are made, can children compete and increase the richness of the gameplay? It is also important to spend time testing the spacing and adding unpredictability. (R2_O_20221103)

During the production of the play equipment, a professional carpenter was invited to provide structural recommendations for the student’s production of the 3D prototype of the wooden plank play equipment (Fig. 6 ).

The professional carpenter: This group of students is highly motivated. They encountered a problem with the positioning of the slope and its connection with the hexagonal structure. The slope is placed on a rectangular frame, and there is a possibility that the frame may collapse when children climb on it. One solution is to make the frame square instead of rectangular. For the upper part of the structure, two ladders are used. The thickness of the wood for the ladders needs to be determined. The structure may sag in the middle if the wood is not thick enough. Therefore, support poles may need to be added to the bottom, and the design of the upper wooden board also needs to be considered. (R1_O_20221117)

3D prototype of the creative play equipment designed by a group (R1_O_20221117).

The role of the case instructor: guiding student thinking and providing direction and strategies

In interdisciplinary classrooms, besides teaching professional knowledge, the case instructor played a crucial role in guiding students’ thinking and providing problem-solving strategies and directions.

R1: What is C’s (the case instructor) role?

SG: He tends to play the role of “guiding without being overly directive”. In other words, he would provide us with some resources in the early stages but does not interfere too much with the content we discuss. If we encounter problems, we can discuss them with him. For example, when we were facing the second prototype revision round at one elementary school, he came to discuss it with us. As our entire play equipment was too big, he suggested a direction and guided our discussion toward the idea of “modular play equipment”. (SG_I_20221222)

As interdisciplinary educators, we must be prepared to allow students to feel uncomfortable and uncertain in their learning environments. However, we must also maintain a safe learning environment where students are free to make mistakes and their perspectives are valued and understood (Gardiner, 2020 ). Therefore, when students’ approaches and definitions of problem-solving deviate from the topic, instructors must intervene and guide them while valuing their ideas. The following is a discussion that the case instructor had with group members after class, as they had deviated from the main theme while working on their final proposal for play equipment.

TS: Last week’s successful experience seemed to have limited you to focusing only on game design instead of equipment design, which led you to break out of the original scope of the assignment to design equipment. I do not agree that you violated the assignment rules by making a game. I appreciate your out-of-the-box thinking, but this assignment was not about game design. You could incorporate fighting or obstacle race concepts and create various obstacles, such as throwing actions. I can accept starting with archery or throwing games as a basis for obstacle racing and turning the field into a space of thieves, where breaking through various obstacles can allow the children to complete different missions. (R1_O_20221117)

The challenges and responses of interdisciplinary teaching

Interdisciplinary teaching in practice: addressing technical skill gaps and enhancing learning experiences.

The case instructor has a humanities and social sciences background. Despite being able to introduce external experts and resources to compensate for their lack of technical expertise, some students still feel insufficient time is allocated for learning certain technical skills, such as woodworking.

The case instructor taught some content too quickly, and the time he spent teaching woodworking was very short for those who didn’t know. When he taught, he compressed some content, making me feel that professional learning was insufficient, and I needed to find additional information to understand it. … Although his manual skills were not very good, his biggest help to me was that he would ask us to conduct field investigations, which allowed us to observe many details. (SA_I_20221228)

Ideal interdisciplinary teaching requires close collaboration among scholars from different fields. Regular professional communication and dialog are essential to understand the interrelationships and differences between each other’s subjects and facilitate collaborative teaching with two or more instructors from different disciplines. Joint preparation is also required to discuss the goals, content design, teaching methods, and assessment strategies for interdisciplinary learning (Chang and Lin, 2019 ). However, due to school resources and practical considerations, a single instructor often undertakes interdisciplinary teaching in Taiwan. Therefore, a sole instructor of interdisciplinary courses must engage in interdisciplinary learning to accumulate different forms of professional knowledge and new perspectives. The case instructor must frequently engage in metacognitive reflection on professional limitations, introduce resources from other fields as appropriate, and have a basic understanding of other fields to become a bridge for students to engage in learning from different disciplines.

My major is not in design, so I must resort to some simple methods that students can brainstorm with. At this point, I learned about Bauhaus, a design school from before World War II who influenced design education worldwide. What I learned from Bauhaus was that, with the simplest colors, one could create many basic, minimalist designs. We don’t need to make students do something fancy. Instead, they can start learning about what design is and what form is by being able to decompose or transform the combination of these simple geometric shapes. I think that’s enough. I think the design thinking curriculum is not simply about learning about form but also about solving problems, and that form is just one problem-solving method. (TS_I_20230104)

Most university instructors typically have a single disciplinary background, and to engage in interdisciplinary course instruction, they must be open-minded and capable of reflective thinking. An open-minded attitude is essential in learning about different fields and understanding the professional terminology used in other fields. Additionally, interdisciplinary instructors need specialized knowledge, educational expertise, or teaching skills. They should constantly reflect on the content of the course and its relevance to the real world, finding a balance between reflection and routine and between thinking and action (Zeichner and Liston, 1996 ).

Navigating constraints: challenges in implementing design thinking cycles and community exhibitions in a limited-time academic semester

In a 16-week course with only three hours per week, students were expected to complete three design thinking cycles and organize a public exhibition in the community of their wooden play equipment. Throughout the process, the case instructor and students must overcome resource and funding challenges, work collaboratively in teams, and invest significant time and effort in completing various assignments and tasks. Due to their academic course loads, semester schedules, financial constraints, and the need for additional employment, students might encounter time limitations that may affect their participation in and ability to benefit from all the activities (Ryser et al., 2009 ). While most students showed a strong commitment to learning, the researcher observed that some students could not dedicate additional time outside of class to construct their wooden play equipment due to the required time investment.

For most of the courses I have taken, the requirements usually involve writing a paper or presenting a proposal. If it’s even simpler, like if everyone just wants to pass, we might do a group project where we all contribute information, and one person compiles it all to complete the report. However, in this class, I feel that many complex discussions and divisions of labor are required because we’re not just preparing a report. We also have to assign carpentry work, decide how to make proposals. and allocate labor. (SL_I_20221228)

In Taiwan, a typical university semester lasts 16 to 18 weeks, with each course typically consisting of 2 to 3 classes per week. Different schools have different regulations regarding semester length and course schedules. These regulations often constrain interdisciplinary courses, making it difficult for students to have a coherent or in-depth learning experience. Therefore, the school administration’s cooperation is essential (such as cross-departmental course selection systems, credit granting, and instructor allocation) (Chang and Lin, 2019 ). The case instructor believes that design thinking should have different learning directions at various stages of the academic system and suggests that schools should have more flexible implementation schedules for interdisciplinary courses, allowing instructors to design courses that enable students to have greater involvement and apply what they have learned (TS_I_20230104).

Balancing interdisciplinary teaching content and pedagogical principles: challenges and considerations

This interdisciplinary course requires three cycles of design thinking. Therefore, the case instructor had a busy and full teaching schedule in the classroom, potentially resulting in the omission of some skills instruction. For example, when university students designed dream backpacks with children, the researcher observed that the university students needed to improve their interviewing skills.

In one group of elementary school students working on the design of a dream backpack, the group of university students kept asking the elementary school students questions, which caused them to hesitate in their ideation of the backpack. They were unsure whether it was due to difficulty responding to too many questions, making it difficult to draw their ideas immediately. The university students asked many questions to stimulate the elementary school students’ imagination regarding the backpack design, but the elementary school students did not respond much. (R1_O_20221006)

In interdisciplinary courses, forming student teams is also challenging. The case instructor asked the students to post their expertise on the wall and recruit members with different skills to form teams. The case instructor hoped to have students from different disciplines on each team; this was a modification he made after teaching the course for four rounds. However, one group in which all seven students were from the same discipline remained, and they could not find another group to join. The case instructor compromised on this principle and allowed students from the same field to form a group.

Last year, there was another event where some people couldn’t be grouped due to overly strict grouping, and it seemed like we were exposing some people to exclusion. This year, a few people couldn’t be grouped with anyone else, such as students J, B, or C. It was difficult to divide them up, so I thought giving them a sense of belonging and letting them be in the same group rather than strictly enforcing the grouping was more important. Of course, I asked their opinions, “Are you willing to sacrifice your rights to work with people from other departments or different people?” They said they were willing, so I let them continue in the same group. (TS_I_20230104)

Furthermore, in authentic field-based courses, the case instructor allowed students opportunities for free exploration if they did not deviate too much from the topic. Even if the students had not considered the specific characteristics of the final practical field, they were usually given the freedom to proceed without too many restrictions.

In this group, I feel that they did not consider that the playground equipment should be placed in a park because the playground equipment exhibition is an event. Their initial proposition was “no pressure”, wanting introverted children to hide in the playground equipment alone. However, most of the people who come to play with the equipment in the park are accompanied by their parents, and basically, it is just for children to release their energy. Therefore, this setting is unsuitable, but I wanted to let them try it out. (TS_I_20230104)

Interdisciplinary teaching is a highly complex process that requires instructors to possess a level of interdisciplinary background and teaching knowledge to balance the learning proportion of professional knowledge, interdisciplinary teaching content, and principles in curriculum design. At the same time, they must also have sufficient resources, time, and practical experience to connect classroom content with the real world and consider using different teaching tasks to provide students with guidance scaffolding to develop hard and soft skills (Vogler et al., 2018 ). In addition, interdisciplinary design thinking courses should include growth-oriented reflection, explicit group work skills, and content with a real-world application (Skywark et al., 2022 ). As interdisciplinary instructors, they must also have a degree of flexibility and openness to accept unexpected situations that may arise during the process and afford students the space to try and learn from their mistakes.

Conclusions and suggestions

Conclusions, design thinking as a methodology for interdisciplinary curriculum design and teaching.

In higher education, instructors often lack interdisciplinary education and training in using interdisciplinary methods in teaching. Drawing on the case instructor’s interdisciplinary curriculum design and teaching experience in this study, we propose that design thinking is a suitable methodology for interdisciplinary curriculum design and teaching. Design thinking emphasizes starting from practical situations and problems, exploring users’ potential needs and challenges, and valuing human-centered design and innovative solutions. In interdisciplinary courses, students come from diverse backgrounds and professions, and they can work together using design thinking to integrate their knowledge and skills to solve complex problems.

In interdisciplinary teaching, it is crucial to assess effective methods for fostering teacher-student relationships and promoting classroom discussions. Researching the roles of visual tools and communication in interdisciplinary dialog provides valuable insights, contributing to a deeper understanding of their impact on learning. Additionally, the study explored the influence of on-site observation and user experiences on students, assessing the feasibility of integrating these activities. Analyzing the progressive practice of the design POV sheds light on its effects on students’ problem-solving abilities. The study also emphasized the importance of feedback collection during prototype testing, presenting best practices and improvement recommendations. Lastly, an evaluation of instructors’ roles in interdisciplinary teaching concluded the exploration, offering insights and practical recommendations for enhanced teaching effectiveness.

This case study investigated the development and delivery of an interdisciplinary curriculum within a university setting, exploring instructional challenges and strategies for professional development and reflection, particularly in the unique circumstances of a university post-pandemic. The insights aimed to guide the advancement of interdisciplinary education practices in Taiwan and beyond. The research examined strategies used by instructors to balance disciplinary knowledge acquisition in interdisciplinary teaching, addressing limitations in their professional background and how this balance impacts student expectations. An evaluation assesses the resource and time investment required for interdisciplinary course development, exploring strategies to overcome associated challenges. Emphasizing the intricate connection between interdisciplinary course content and the real world, the study underscores the need for ample resources, time, and practical venues.

Cultivating interdisciplinary talent is crucial in higher education, leading to recommendations for allocating fixed funds in future university academic development plans. Instructors are encouraged to actively seek government research project funds and collaborate with established partners for enduring learning opportunities. Despite increased time investment and potential term-related limitations in interdisciplinary learning, the suggestion is to enhance student learning depth by introducing flexibility into the curricular structure, such as adopting a modular or intensive course system. The ongoing challenge of balancing interdisciplinary teaching content and principles necessitates continuous adjustments. In designing learning tasks, instructors should prioritize depth over breadth, avoiding superficial outcomes. It is crucial to adapt courses based on student feedback to achieve interdisciplinary teaching objectives.

Limitations and suggestions

This study investigated how a university instructor utilizes design thinking in interdisciplinary curriculum design and explored the teaching challenges and coping strategies. Due to space limitations, this study primarily focused on the case instructor’s perspective and did not present the students’ views on interdisciplinary learning. Additionally, to avoid disrupting classroom learning, the researcher and the collaborative observer only observed from the periphery of the classroom and did not observe student interactions during group discussions, so some information could only be obtained through post-interviews.

Furthermore, in this case, the case instructor had a humanities and social science background and thus emphasized observation and interviews. This issue requires further exploration into interdisciplinary curriculum design. The emphasis on interdisciplinary curriculum design could differ if the focus were shifted to instructors or students from a science and technology background. Future research could conduct comparative studies of interdisciplinary teaching among instructors from diverse backgrounds to understand their perspectives on interdisciplinary curriculum design. Finally, future research could also investigate students’ attitudes and opinions on interdisciplinary learning to understand more fully their needs and expectations of interdisciplinary education.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Berasategi N, Aróstegui I, Jaureguizar J, Aizpurua A, Guerra N, Arribillaga-Iriarte A (2020) Interdisciplinary learning at university: assessment of an interdisciplinary experience based on the case study methodology. Sustainability 12:7732. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187732

Article   Google Scholar  

Biasutti M, EL-Deghaidy H (2014) Interdisciplinary project-based learning: an online wiki experience in instructor education. Technol Pedagog Educ 24(3):339–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2014.899510

Brown T (2008) Design thinking. Harvard Bus Rev 2008:84–92

Google Scholar  

Brown T (2009) Change by design: how design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. HarperCollins, New York

Carpenter SL, Delugach HS, Etzkorn LH, Farrinton PA, Fortune J, Utley DR, Virani SS (2007) A knowledge modeling approach to evaluating student essays in engineering courses. J Eng Educ 96(3):227–239. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2007.tb00932.x

Chang C-Y, Lin C-C (2019) Promoting transdisciplinary learning in higher education: trends, myths, approaches and challenges. Curric Instr Q 22(2):31–48. https://doi.org/10.6384/CIQ.201904_22(2).0002

Chen L-C, Wang T-H, Chiu F-Y, Shen S-Y, Zeng M (2017) Developing the interdisciplinary integration-based core competencies scale: a case study of maternal–infant services curriculum. Chin J Sci Edu 25(2):143–168. https://doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.2017.2502.03

Chen W, Yang T (2020) Competency-based curriculum design: The application of "design-based learning." J. Spec. Educ 32, 10–23

Denzin N (1978) Sociological methods: a sourcebook, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

Dukala K, Pyrkosz-Pacyna J, Czarny R (2023) DTMethod: a new evidence-based design thinking methodology for effective teamwork. Sustainability 15(4187):1–4. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054187

Elsbach KD, Stigliani I (2018) Design thinking and organizational culture: a review and framework for future research. J Manag 44:2274–2306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317744252

Gardiner P (2020) Learning to think together: creativity, interdisciplinary collaboration and epistemic control. Think Skills Creat 38:100749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100749

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Guo C-J (2008) Introduction to interdisciplinary research and education. Res Innov 7:5–6. https://doi.org/10.29603/ZHWHGX.200805.0002

Hardy JG, Sdepanian S, Stowell AF, Aljohani AD, Allen MJ, Anwar A, Barton D, Baum JV, Bird D, Blaney A, Brewster L, Cheneler D, Efremova O, Entwistle M, Esfahani RN, Firlak M, Foito A, Forciniti L, Geissler SA, Wright KL (2021) Potential for chemistry in multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary teaching activities in higher education. J Chem Educ 98:1124–1145. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01363

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Henriksen D, Richardson C, Mehta R (2017) Design thinking: a creative approach to educational problems of practice. Think Skills Creat 26:140–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.10.001

Hsu YC, Shiue YM (2018) Exploring the influence of using collaborative tools on the community of inquiry in an interdisciplinary project-based learning context. EURASIA J Math\ Sci Technol Educ 14(3):933–945. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/81149

Ivanitskaya L, Clark D, Montgomery G, Primeau R (2002) Interdisciplinary learning: process and outcomes. Innov High Educ 27(2):95–111. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021105309984

Johansen D, Scaff C, Hargis J (2009) Interdisciplinary project-based model for enhanced instruction course. Int J Scholarsh Teach Learn 3(1), Article 22. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2009.030122

Katz J, Martin B (1997) What is research collaboration? Res Policy 26(1):1–18

Li T, Zhan Z (2022) A systematic review on design thinking integrated learning in K-12 education. Appl Sci 12(8077):1–34. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12168077

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Liu S-N (2021) Design thinking toolkit. Health Promotion Administration

Majeski R (2005) Interdisciplinary problem-based learning in gerontology: a plan of action. Educ Gerontol 31:733–743. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601270500250119

Maxwell JA (1992) Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harv Educ Rev 62:279–300

McLaughlin JE, Chen E, Lake D, Guo W, Skywark ER, Chernik A et al. (2022) Design thinking teaching and learning in higher education: experiences across four universities. PLoS ONE 17(3):e0265902. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265902

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Mehalik MM, Schunn C (2006) What constitutes good design? A review of empirical studies of design processes. Int J Eng Educ 22(3):519–532

Micheli P, Wilner SJS, Bhatti SH, Mura M, Beverland MB (2019) Doing design thinking: conceptual review, synthesis, and research agenda. J Product Innov Manag 36(2):124–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12466

Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

Modo M, Kinchin IM (2011) A conceptual framework for interdisciplinary curriculum design: a case study in neuroscience. J Undergrad Neurosci Educ 10(1):71–79

Nelson D (2004) Design based learning delivers required standards in all subjects, K-12. Retrieved from California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Web site: https://www.csupomona.edu/~dnelson/documents/jis_vol17_fall04.doc

Repko AF (2008) Interdisciplinary research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

Repko AF, Szostak R (2021) Interdisciplinary research: process and theory, 4th edn. Sage

Ryser L, Halseth G, Thien D (2009) Strategies and intervening factors influencing student social interaction and experiential learning in an interdisciplinary research team. Res High Educ 50:248–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-008-9118-3

Skywark ER, Chen E, Jagannathan V (2022) Using the design thinking process to co-create a new, interdisciplinary design thinking course to train 21st century graduate students. Front Public Health 9(777869):1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.777869

Spelt EJH, Biemans HJA, Tobi H, Luning PA, Mulder M (2009) Teaching and learning in interdisciplinary higher education: a systematic review. Educ Psychol Rev 21:365–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9113-z

Stentoft D (2017) From saying to doing interdisciplinary learning: is problem-based learning the answer? Act Learn High Educ 18(1):51–61

Stozhko N, Bortnik B, Mironova L, Tchernysheva A, Podshivalova E (2015) Interdisciplinary project-based learning: technology for improving student cognition. Res Learn Technol 23:1–13. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v23.27577

Tan A-G (2017) Cross-disciplinary creativity and design thinking. In: Darbellay F, Moody Z, Lubart T (eds) Creativity, design thinking and interdisciplinarity. Creativity in the twenty first century. Springer, Singapore

Tang H-H, Lin Y-Q (2011) The influence and problems of scenario design approach on multi-disciplinary collaboration design. J Design 16(3):21–44. https://doi.org/10.6381/JD.201109.0021

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Tsai M-L (2014) How to facilitate learning of interdisciplinary collaboration skills. Sci Mon 529:4–5

Vogler JS, Thompson P, Davis DW, Mayfield BE, Finley PM, Yasseri D (2018) The hard work of soft skills: augmenting the project-based learning experience with interdisciplinary teamwork. Instr Sci 46:457–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9438-9

Wang C-C (2023) Enabling interdisciplinary competence-based teaching practices through design thinking. Taiwan Nat Sci 42(3):6–13. https://doi.org/10.29879/TNS

Wang C-C, Sung S-H (2019) The “adaptive instruction” course as an example of the application and evaluation of a teacher education program course incorporating design thinking. J Res Educ Sci 64(6):157–185. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.201912_64(4).0006

Wang C-C, Sung S-H (2022) Career development and improvements of preservice teachers through design your life course at science and technology universities. J Res Educ Sci 67(6):221–253. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202212_67(4).0007

Whitney MC (2014) Interdisciplinary collaboration in the classroom. Int J Interdiscip Stud Commun 8(4):1–8. https://doi.org/10.18848/2324-7320/CGP/v08i04/53595

Wróblewska D, Okraszewska R (2020) Project-based learning as a method for interdisciplinary adaptation to climate change—Reda valley case study. Sustainability 12:4360. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114360

Yang C-Y, Kang S-C, Chen Y-F, Lin C-Y, Leng E-S, Lin Y-H (2018) Using “design-based learning” as preliminary foundation of smart aging design course. Chin J Sci Educ 26(S):399–418. https://doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.201812/SP_26.0002

Yang W-C, Lin C-C (2015) Effectiveness of the interdisciplinary team to integrating operation rd system—a study of different team backgrounds of the same department affect contest learning effectiveness. Manag Inf Comput 4(1):285–293. https://doi.org/10.6285/MIC.4(1).23

Yueh HP, Lin YL, Lin W (2015) Fostering interdisciplinary learning in a smart living technology course through a PBL approach. Int J Eng Educ 31(1):220–228

Zeichner KM, Liston DP (1996) Reflective teaching: an introduction. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Science and Technology Council of Taiwan under Grant No. NSTC 111-2410-H-017-027-.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Education, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

Chia-Chi Wang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chia-Chi Wang .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declared no competing interests.

Ethical approval

The study has received ethical approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee at National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan, confirming its adherence to ethical guidelines [NCKU HREC-E-110-637-2].

Informed consent

The study has received ethical approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee, Taiwan, confirming its adherence to ethical guidelines. In the interests of research ethics, the participants were asked to fill in the research informed-consent form voluntarily and also to freely decide whether to agree to include the previously collected data in the final research analysis to protect their rights and interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Wang, CC. Using design thinking for interdisciplinary curriculum design and teaching: a case study in higher education. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 307 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02813-z

Download citation

Received : 09 August 2023

Accepted : 06 February 2024

Published : 24 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02813-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Academic Bibliography

• Download "Paper Design Thinking Sco(...).pdf"
• See all downloads
• Search results
• Design thinking in higher education :...

Teaching and learning artificial intelligence: Insights from the literature

• Published: 02 May 2024

Cite this article

• Bahar Memarian   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0671-3127 1 &
• Tenzin Doleck 1  

153 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been around for nearly a century, yet in recent years the rapid advancement and public access to AI applications and algorithms have led to increased attention to the role of AI in higher education. An equally important but overlooked topic is the study of AI teaching and learning in higher education. We wish to examine the overview of the study, pedagogical outcomes, challenges, and limitations through a systematic review process amidst the COVID-19 pandemic and public access to ChatGPT. Twelve articles from 2020 to 2023 focused on AI pedagogy are explored in this systematic literature review. We find in-depth analysis and comparison of work post-COVID and AI teaching and learning era is needed to have a more focused lens on the current state of AI pedagogy. Findings reveal that the use of self-reported surveys in a pre-and post-design form is most prevalent in the reviewed studies. A diverse set of constructs are used to conceptualize AI literacy and their associated metrics and scales of measure are defined based on the work of specific authors rather than a universally accepted framework. There remains work and consensus on what learning objectives, levels of thinking skills, and associated activities lead to the advanced development of AI literacy. An overview of the studies, pedagogical outcomes, and challenges are provided. Further implications of the studies are also shared. The contribution of this work is to open discussions on the overlooked topic of AI teaching and learning in higher education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Artificial intelligence in education: Addressing ethical challenges in K-12 settings

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Student Assistants in the Classroom: Designing Chatbots to Support Student Success

Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators?

Data availability.

Data sharing does not apply to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Ali, M., & Abdel-Haq, M. K. (2021). Bibliographical analysis of artificial intelligence learning in Higher Education: is the role of the human educator and educated a thing of the past? Fostering Communication and Learning With Underutilized Technologies in Higher Education , 36–52.

Anderson, J., Rainie, L., & Luchsinger, A. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the future of humans. Pew Research Center , 10 (12).

Bates, T., Cobo, C., Mariño, O., & Wheeler, S. (2020). No can artificial intelligence transform higher education? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education , 17 (1), 1–12.

Article   Google Scholar  

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Train-the-trainers: Implementing outcomes-based teaching and learning in Malaysian higher education. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction , 8 , 1–19.

Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 3 , 993–1022.

Google Scholar  

Chang, Y. S., Wang, Y. Y., & Ku, Y. T. (2023). Influence of online STEAM hands-on learning on AI learning, creativity, and creative emotions. Interact Learn Environ PG . https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2205898 .

Chen, X., Xie, H., Zou, D., & Hwang, G. J. (2020). Application and theory gaps during the rise of artificial intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence , 1 , 100002.

Clark, D. (2023). PedAIgogy – New Era of Knowledge and Learning Where AI changes Everything .

Covidence (2023). Covidence systematic review software . www.covidence.org.

Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2023). Artificial intelligence in higher education: The state of the field. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education , 20 (1), 1–22.

Cumming, G., & McDougall, A. (2000). Mainstreaming AIED into education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education , 11 (2), 197–207.

Dignum, V. (2020). AI is multidisciplinary. AI Matters , 5 (4), 18–21.

Fuller, C. M., Simmering, M. J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y., & Babin, B. J. (2016). Common methods variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research , 69 (8), 3192–3198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008 .

Gao, Z., Wanyama, T., & Singh, I. (2020). Project and practice centered learning: A systematic methodology and strategy to cultivate future full stack artificial intelligence engineers. Int. J. Eng. Educ , 36 (6 PG-1760–1772), 1760–1772. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2s2.085096038454&partnerID=40&md5=b4778257adf34da504fdf1f97ebb7fe9NS .

Halic, O., Lee, D., Paulus, T., & Spence, M. (2010). To blog or not to blog: Student perceptions of blog effectiveness for learning in a college-level course. The Internet and Higher Education , 13 (4), 206–213.

Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development , 48 (3), 23–48.

Hsu, T. C., & Chen, M. S. (2022). The engagement of students when learning to use a personal audio classifier to control robot cars in a computational thinking board game. Res Pract Technol Enhanc Learn , 17 (1 PG-). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-022-00202-1 .

Hwang, G. J., Xie, H., Wah, B. W., & Gašević, D. (2020). Vision, challenges, roles and research issues of Artificial Intelligence in Education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence , 1 , 100001.

Jaramillo, F., Locander, W. B., Spector, P. E., & Harris, E. G. (2007). Getting the job done: The moderating role of initiative on the relationship between intrinsic motivation and adaptive selling. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management , 27 (1), 59–74.

Javed, R. T., Nasir, O., Borit, M., Vanhée, L., Zea, E., Gupta, S., Vinuesa, R., & Qadir, J. (2022). Get out of the BAG! Silos in AI Ethics Education: Unsupervised topic modeling analysis of global AI Curricula. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research , 73 , 933–965. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1.13550 .

Jiang, L. (2021). Virtual reality Action interactive teaching Artificial Intelligence Education System. Complexity , 2021 (PG-). https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5553211 .

Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence , 1 (9), 389–399.

Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development , 10 (3), 2–10.

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Kim, S., Jang, Y., Choi, S., Kim, W., Jung, H., Kim, S., & Kim, H. (2021). Analyzing teacher competency with TPACK for K-12 AI education. KI-Künstliche Intelligenz , 35 (2), 139–151.

Koh, J. H., Chai, L., Wong, C. S., & Hong, B., H.-Y (2015). Design thinking for education: Conceptions and applications in teaching and learning . Springer.

Kong, S. C., Cheung, W. M. Y., & Zhang, G. (2023). Evaluating an Artificial Intelligence Literacy Programme for developing University students’ conceptual understanding, literacy, empowerment and ethical awareness. Educational Technology and Society , 26 (1), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.30191/ETS.202301_26(1).0002 .

Korkmaz, Ö., & Xuemei, B. A. I. (2019). Adapting computational thinking scale (CTS) for Chinese high school students and their thinking scale skills level. Participatory Educational Research , 6 (1), 10–26.

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice , 41 (4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2 .

Lin, C. H., Wu, L. Y., Wang, W. C., Wu, P. L., & Cheng, S. Y. (2020). Development and validation of an instrument for AI-Literacy. 3rd Eurasian Conference on Educational Innovation (ECEI 2020) .

Lin, X. F., Chen, L., Chan, K. K., Peng, S. Q., Chen, X. F., Xie, S. Q., Liu, J. C., & Hu, Q. T. (2022). Teachers’ perceptions of teaching sustainable Artificial Intelligence: A Design Frame Perspective. SUSTAINABILITY , 14 (13 PG-). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137811 .

Martín-Núñez, J. L., Ar, A. Y., Fernández, R. P., Abbas, A., & Radovanović, D. (2023). Does intrinsic motivation mediate perceived artificial intelligence (AI) learning and computational thinking of students during the COVID-19 pandemic? Computers & Education , 4(PG-) . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100128 .

Meek, T., Barham, H., Beltaif, N., Kaadoor, A., & Akhter, T. (2016). Managing the ethical and risk implications of rapid advances in artificial intelligence: A literature review. 2016 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET) , 682–693.

Miriyev, A., & Kovač, M. (2020). Skills for physical artificial intelligence. Nature Machine Intelligence , 2 (11), 658–660.

Ng, D. T. K., Lee, M., Tan, R. J. Y., Hu, X., Downie, J. S., & Chu, S. K. W. (2022). A review of AI teaching and learning from 2000 to 2020. EDUCATION AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11491-w .

Pinkwart, N. (2016). Another 25 years of AIED? Challenges and opportunities for intelligent educational technologies of the future. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education , 26 , 771–783.

Popenici, S. A., & Kerr, S. (2017). Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence on teaching and learning in higher education. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning , 12 (1), 1–13.

Rizvi, S., Waite, J., & Sentance, S. (2023). Artificial Intelligence teaching and learning in K-12 from 2019 to 2022: A systematic literature review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence , 100145.

Shih, P. K., Lin, C. H., Wu, L. Y., & Yu, C. C. (2021). Learning ethics in AI—teaching non-engineering undergraduates through situated learning. Sustainability , 13 (7), 3718.

Southworth, J., Migliaccio, K., Glover, J., Glover, J. N., Reed, D., McCarty, C., Brendemuhl, J., & Thomas, A. (2023). Developing a model for AI across the curriculum: Transforming the higher education landscape via innovation in AI literacy. Computers & Education , 4 , PG–. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100127 .

Su, J., Guo, K., Chen, X., & Chu, S. K. W. (2023). Teaching artificial intelligence in K–12 classrooms: A scoping review. Interactive Learning Environments , 1–20.

Tedre, M., Toivonen, T., Kahila, J., Vartiainen, H., Valtonen, T., Jormanainen, I., & Pears, A. (2021). Teaching machine learning in K–12 classroom: Pedagogical and technological trajectories for artificial intelligence education. Ieee Access : Practical Innovations, Open Solutions , 9 , 110558–110572.

UNESCO (2023). 10 Innovative Learning Strategies For Modern Pedagogy . TeachThought Staff. https://policytoolbox.iiep.unesco.org/library/BHABKKH6 .

Wong, M. K., Wu, J., Ong, Z. Y., Goh, J. L., Cheong, C. W. S., Tay, K. T., Tan, L. H. S., & Krishna, L. K. R (2019). Teaching ethics in medical schools: A systematic review from 2000 to 2018. Journal of Medical Education , 18 , 226–250.

Xu, B. (2021). Artificial Intelligence Teaching System and Data Processing Method based on Big Data. Complexity , 2021(PG-) . https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9919401 .

Yağcı, M. (2019). A valid and reliable tool for examining computational thinking skills. Education and Information Technologies , 24 (1), 929–951.

Yi, Y. (2021). Establishing the concept of AI literacy. European Journal of Bioethics , 12 (2), 353–368.

Yue, M., Jong, M. S. Y., & Dai, Y. (2022). Pedagogical design of K-12 artificial intelligence education: A systematic review. Sustainability , 14 (23), 15620.

Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education–where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education , 16 (1), 1–27.

Zeide, E. (2019). Artificial intelligence in higher education: Applications, promise and perils, and ethical questions. Educause Review , 54 (3).

Zhang, K., & Aslan, A. B. (2021). AI technologies for education: Recent research & future directions. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence , 2 , 100025.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Bahar Memarian & Tenzin Doleck

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bahar Memarian .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest, additional information, publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Memarian, B., Doleck, T. Teaching and learning artificial intelligence: Insights from the literature. Educ Inf Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12679-y

Download citation

Received : 03 August 2023

Accepted : 10 April 2024

Published : 02 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12679-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Higher education
• Artificial intelligence (AI)
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research