Association Between Design Thinking and Learning Experience in Higher Education: A Systematic Review

Association Between Design Thinking and Learning Experience in Higher Education: A Systematic Review | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Systematic Review Association Between Design Thinking and Learning Experience in Higher Education: A Systematic Review George Attah Aboagye, Kwame Fordjour Owusu, Emmanuel Aklasu, Frank Paul Mattews Nti, and 3 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9319231/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted 12 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This systematic review investigates the association between design thinking (DT) on higher education learning experiences. Evidence from twenty-nine empirical studies, the review examines how DT strategies are integrated into instructional practices and their influence on student engagement, creativity, academic satisfaction, and learning outcomes. It shows diverse pedagogical strategies, including project-based learning, design studio pedagogy, flipped learning, STEAM integration, and culturally relevant methods. The review finds that Design thinking-based instructions improve student motivation, creativity, critical thinking, and ownership of their learning. The review recommends further research into DT's scalability, contextual variations, and longitudinal effects on student learning. Design Thinking Learning Experience Higher Education Student Engagement Pedagogical Strategies Systematic Review pedagogical innovation PRISMA Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction Design thinking has appeared as transformative approach to problem solving in higher education providing students with vital 21st century competencies and preparing them to address complex real-world problems or challenges. These competencies will foster problem-solving, through human centered methodologies in addressing creative and innovations. Design thinking, a human-centric method for revolutionary problem-solving, has surged in popularity recently, gaining a varied international audience and resulting in an increased demand for design thinking in higher Education that offer experiences of 21st century skills. It originated from Stanford University's design thinking paradigm, disseminated throughout more than 60 institutions worldwide, engages students from all disciplines in addressing real-world situations through design thinking methodology (Taheri et al., 2016 ). The discourse on design thinking, which varies in meaning according to context, is often neglected within the design domain. It comprises five separate discourses of 'designedly thinking', each with unique epistemological foundations, fostering creativity and innovation (Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013 ). Certain designers and researchers may link design thinking to a cognitive framework and differentiate between contemplation and action. However, there is still limited evidence on the impact of design thinking on student learning experiences and skills development. Design Thinking (DT) is increasingly reorganized as important for equipping college graduates with practical, human-centered problem-solving skills, needed to address complex real-world issues. This recognition has prompting a new evaluation of faculty and student practices in higher education (McLaughlin et al., 2022 ). Beyond its origins in design domain, Design thinking is acknowledged as a modern paradigm in fields such as education, business, information technology, and medicine, enabling innovative solutions to multifaceted problems (Brown, 2008 ; Dorst, 2011 ; Li & Zhan, 2022 ). What distinguishes design thinking in education is its unique approach to by incorporating designers' sensibilities and methodologies to harmonizes human needs with technological possibilities, transforming viable ideas into customer value and market potential (Guaman-Quintanilla et al., 2018 ). As such, there is growing necessity across multiple domains, in higher education to deliberately cultivate skills like problem-finding, problem-framing, and creative problem-solving. Incorporating theses competencies in educational curricula, is crucial for preparing students to succeed in the complex and shifting landscape of 21st century job market (McLaughlin et al., 2022 ). These needs addressing effective strategies for competencies that impact student learning experiences in 21st century job market. Students in higher education demonstrate problem-solving abilities through structured projects and innovative activities, necessitating design thinking skills that involve adaptable processes and iterative cycles for reflective creativity (Razali et al., 2022 ). For instance, Art programs or engineering, students employ design thinking process to ideate, prototype, and test solutions for community. Also, combining design thinking into interdisciplinary courses where students apply this method to address real-word challenges within the community. These show how design thinking is structured in higher education to develop 21st century competencies. Despite its growing popularity in recent years, Design Thinking remains insufficiently theorized and inadequately researched (Guaman-Quintanilla et al., 2018 ; Kimbell, 2011 ). Again, the iteration design can be adjusted to improve student learning efficacy. Design thinking, an innovative methodology in higher education, engages students from many disciplines collaboratively to address intricate challenges with a human-centered focus (Mosely et al., 2018 ; Wrigley & Straker, 2017 ). Studies underscores the need of cultivating critical and creative thinking, communication, collaboration, and information literacy as vital competencies for the 21st century (Koh et al., 2015 ). In Design Thinking educational content, the objective is to cultivate a multi-disciplinary curriculum that illustrates the integration of essential abilities within higher Education (Wrigley & Straker, 2017 ). Despite its advantages, there is still the question about how to incorporate multidisciplinary into curricular across varied higher education. Design thinking is a framework utilised in the creation of hardware, software, business models, organisations, and environments, progressing through iterative design and learning processes(Beckman & Barry, 2007 ). Moreover, it aligns with experiential learning which improves design thinking by cultivating student choice, empathy, ideation, prototyping, and testing to obtain feedback, refine solutions, and comprehend user demands (Gan & Ouh, 2019 ). Additionally, Design thinking methods create emotional experiences and tangible artefacts, facilitating users' comprehension of the cultural contexts that enhance their effective application (Elsbach & Stigliani, 2018 ). The practical aspect of these tools promotes reciprocal help. Design Thinking lacks a precise definition; however, 20 of 79 research evaluated its effects on students, identifying around 20 abilities, 7 learning outcomes, and 5 attitudes (Guaman-Quintanilla et al., 2018 ). Again, it has been excessively simplified across multiple industries, resulting in a deficiency of design thinking specialists and a discontented research community (Dorst, 2011 ; Mosely et al., 2018 ). Additionally, Design Thinking holds potential for curricular development; yet, it necessitates empirical substantiation and evidence-based evaluation to prevent it from becoming a trend reliant on anecdotal accounts (Guaman-Quintanilla et al., 2018 ). It further shows a deficiency of statistically solid empirical investigations regarding the efficiency of DT in yielding consistent learning outcomes. The comprehension of de-disciplined design (DT) pedagogy in higher education is insufficient, requiring additional investigation to elucidate its possible connection to pedagogical praxis and problem-based learning frameworks (McLaughlin et al., 2022 ). Furthermore, Educators ought to persist in DT-TL research by gathering data, formulating quantitative metrics, and executing longitudinal studies including professors, students, and project collaborators to achieve bigger, representative samples (McLaughlin et al., 2022 ). Yet, research is required to comprehend design competence and the implementation of design thinking, along with its effects on facilitators and students in higher educational environments(Mosely et al., 2018 ). There is an urgent need for existing empirical research to understand the impact of design thinking on students' experiences and learning outcomes in higher Education. The interdisciplinary approach once more holds the potential to transform Higher Education through design thinking. The present systematic analysis investigates how Design Thinking (DT) impacts on learning experiences, student perspectives, and pedagogical approaches in higher education across multiple disciplines. The study focused on these questions. How has design thinking being integrated into teaching strategies in higher education? What are university students’ beliefs of their learning experiences on design thinking-based learning activities? What is the impact of design thinking on students’ academic satisfaction and perceived learning outcomes? What methodological Approach has been used in design thinking and learning experience? Methods This systematic review will adhere to the PRISMA guidelines to ensure methodological rigor and transparency. Search Strategy A comprehensive search of relevant databases, on Scopus was conducted keywords and search strings related to design thinking, learning experience and higher education. "Design thinking" OR "user-centric design" OR "creative problem-solving" OR "innovative thinking" AND "learning experience" OR "educational experience" OR "student engagement" AND "higher education" OR "university" OR "college" AND PUBYEAR > 2018 AND PUBYEAR 2018 AND PUBYEAR < 2025 AND ( LIMIT-TO ( OA, "all" ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( AFFILCOUNTRY, "Indonesia" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( AFFILCOUNTRY, "United Kingdom" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( AFFILCOUNTRY, "China" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( AFFILCOUNTRY, "United States" ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( DOCTYPE, "ar" ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA, "ARTS" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA, "PSYC" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA, "ENGI" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA, "COMP" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA, "SOCI" ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( LANGUAGE, "English" ) ) Inclusion criteria Studies that were employed include university students, faculty, and educational stakeholders are being conducted to implement design thinking in higher education. The studies should include article starting from 2018 to 31st May 2025. The focus should be on design thinking as a teaching or learning strategy. Studies on how design thinking has been integrated into pedagogy, curriculum, or instructional design in higher education. The studies may include variations such as human-centered design, project-based learning involving design thinking, or innovation-based learning using design thinking principles. studies that integration of design thinking in education, learning experience, its impact on student perceptions, academic satisfaction, implementation challenges, and the development of theoretical frameworks. Exclusion criteria Studies on K-12 education, design thinking, opinion pieces, and lacking empirical data and relevance to developing contexts. Extraction A literature search was performed using the Scopus database, where 538 results were found or obtained after automation by filtering. A total of 538 records were successfully extracted Scopus into CSV files to be screened by abstract and title. 509 were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. A total of 538 full-text reports were sent for retrieval, of which twenty-seven could not be obtained and 511 reports were assessed by screening the title and abstract in Microsoft spreadsheet. In the long run, twenty-nine studies were included based on the eligibility criteria. Results and discussions The study results revealed that twenty-nine papers meet the criteria to be included in this systematic review. What are design thinking teaching strategies that have integrated into in higher education? Across the reviewed studies, several pedagogical strategies rooted in design thinking (DT) have been integrated into higher education context which includes projected-based learning, studio pedagogy, flipped learning, holistic and Transdisciplinary, Steam and Mathematics integration and Kansei Engineering and Traditional Games. Design Studio pedagogy has been frequently adopted in architecture and urban design disciplines, this strategy emphasizes iterative learning, collaboration, and tutor-student feedback loops (Daly et al., 2019 ) (Kamalipour & Peimani, 2022 ), where project-based learning had that were paired with design thinking to solve authentic problems through teamwork and prototyping (Khoiri et al., 2023 ; Wahyuningsih et al., 2020 ). Again, flipped classroom had been used in design thinking teaching strategies in higher education in medical and design education to promote critical inquiry and pre-class engagement (Hou, 2024 ). DT is effectively blended with flipped learning strategies, improving subject-specific skills and fostering autonomy (Guo, Wang, et al., 2024 ; Mentzer et al., 2022 ). Further, PBL frameworks often integrate DT to promote real-world problem-solving, collaboration, and iteration (Blay & Espartinez, 2024 ; Khoiri et al., 2023 ; Suartama et al., 2024 ; Xu et al., 2024 ). Holistic and transdisciplinary Promotes inclusion, reflection, and multivoiced designs to support collaborative learning implemented in sustainability education and inclusive teaching fostering systems thinking (Blay & Espartinez, 2024 )’ Integration into higher education (Engagement and gamification). Design thinking served as a creative framework for problem-solving and ideation, Tools like CPS and interactive apps scaffold student creativity in STEM and mathematics, Strategies like Room2Educ8 and co-curricular design tasks foster hands-on, interdisciplinary learning. Kansei Engineering and Traditional Games: Used to adapt DT in culturally relevant or product-specific design contexts (Lake et al., 2021 ; Olewnik et al., 2023 ; Suartama et al., 2024 ; Wahyuningsih et al., 2020 ) (Khoiri et al., 2023 ). University Students’ Perceptions of Design Thinking-Based Learning DT strategies led to high engagement, especially when combined with gamification, active learning, or co-curricular involvement (Milovanovic et al., 2021 ; Suartama et al., 2024 ). Instructional strategies that integrate design thinking and active learning markedly enhance motivation, as students' perceptions of design thinking attributes affect their learning motivation. The Creativity and Autonomy Students appreciated opportunities for creativity, ownership, and collaboration, particularly in PBL and flipped designs, and design thinking significantly improved their STEAM self-efficacy and sustained interest. In addition, the students displayed enhanced problem-solving skills and creativity. Design thinking empowered female students to take initiative in learning and increased their confidence. Also, design thinking encourages divergent thinking and creativity in mathematical problem solving. Students experienced increased agency and ownership of their learning. The iterative nature of design thinking is aligned with mathematical reasoning processes. Reflection is central to both the design process and the mathematical understanding (Kijima et al., 2021 ; Newton et al., 2022 ). Higher Education Students experienced increased agency and ownership of their learning. The iterative nature of design thinking aligned with mathematical reasoning process. Reflection is central to both the design process and mathematical understanding. Several studies noted how empathy and emotional reflection strengthened learning experiences (Leslie, 2020 ; Shrestha et al., 2023 ). Design decisions that support interaction, relevance, and usability are key to fostering student engagement. Suffice to say, students valued learning experiences that were meaningful, interactive, and technologically seamless. The Trifecta of Student Engagement model provides guidance for designing engaging online learning environments. Teaching and learning empathy is challenging” for students transitioning to design thinking. Teacher-student relationships contribute to student outcomes. Consequently, teachers are either frustrated or joyful, depending on classroom dynamics. Adaptability and reflecting on emotions are crucial for managing classroom emotions and facilitating student learning. Hence, teachers’ emotions are directly proportional to students’ outcomes. In certain contexts (for example Nepal), students initially struggle with the ambiguity and emotional demands of DT and require effective facilitation (Shrestha et al., 2023 ). Teaching and learning empathy is challenging” for students transitioning to design thinking. Impact of Design Thinking on Academic Satisfaction and Learning Outcomes Higher education students reported greater satisfaction with DT-based courses due to relevance, interactive design, and real-world problem-solving skills (Guo, Long, et al., 2024; Wolcott et al., 2023 ). There was a significant increase in self-reported creativity, self-efficacy in producing novel ideas, the ability to solve problems, and help expand others’ ideas. In addition, an iterative, human-centred approach enhances collaboration and creativity. Transdisciplinary collaboration has helped to bridge theory and practice. Moreover, improvements were observed in critical thinking, creative confidence, problem-solving, and soft skills (Teng et al., 2019 ; Wijaya et al., 2021 ). The quantitative findings by (Milovanovic et al., 2021 ) confirmed significant gains in motivation, collaboration, and creative thinking. Some studies have shown variability in outcomes depending on the students’ experience level and gender(Kijima et al., 2021 ), or discipline (Coleman et al., 2020 ). Theoretical frameworks or models have been used to examine or support the integration of design thinking pedagogy in higher education. Theories used in design thinking and learning experience include constructivist Learning theory, Experiential Learning theory self-Determination theory, Expectancy-Value theory, creative process theory, Tpack. The table below illustrates theories and authors in design thinking and learning experience. Table 1 Authors and the propound theories S/N THEORIES AUTHORS 1. Constructivist Learning Theories ( Daly et al., 2019 ), (Newton et al., 2022 ), (Coleman et al., 2020 ), (Khoiri et al., 2023 ), (Lake et al., 2021 ), (Guo, Wang, et al., 2024 ),(Kamalipour & Peimani, 2022 ) 2. Self-Determination Theory (Milovanovic et al., 2021 ); (Suartama et al., 2024 ) 3. Experiential Learning Theory (Kolb) Lake et al., 2021 ); Daly et al., 2019 ) (Guo, Long, et al., 2024) 4. Expectancy-Value Theory (EVT) (Lin et al., 2023 ; Mentzer et al., 2022 ) 5. Creative Process Theory ( Daly et al., 2019 ); (Wahyuningsih et al., 2020 ) 6. TPACK (Blay & Espartinez, 2024 ) Table 2 Authors and findings Author(s) & Year Country Discipline Study Design Sample (N) Intervention/DT Strategy Key Outcomes Daly et al. ( 2019 ) USA Multidisciplinary (Creative Process) Qualitative (Case-based) N = 42 undergraduates Creative Process Theory integrated into design thinking pedagogy Improved creativity, cross-disciplinary collaboration, and reflective learning Coleman et al. ( 2020 ) USA (multi-site) Engineering Education Quantitative (Survey) N = 1,200 (first-year and senior students) National study measuring DT perceptions Seniors scored higher on DT traits; self-reported design ability linked to problem-solving skills Milovanovic et al. ( 2021 ) USA Engineering Sustainability Quantitative (Quasi-experimental) N = 146 DT-infused active learning in design courses Increased motivation, creative thinking, and sustainability awareness Kijima et al. ( 2021 ) Japan STEAM (Female students) Mixed methods N = 58 DT workshops to cultivate STEAM thinkers Enhanced female students’ confidence, creativity, and divergent thinking Lake et al. ( 2021 ) Australia & USA Cross-disciplinary Mixed methods N = 110 Cross-sector DT practice analysis Improved problem-solving, teamwork, and reflective empathy Guo, Wang, et al. ( 2024 ) China Medical Education (Histology) Quantitative (Quasi-experimental) N = 85 medical students Flipped classroom + DT activities Increased autonomy, subject mastery, and critical inquiry Blay & Espartinez ( 2024 ) Philippines Higher Education (Digital Learning) Qualitative (Q-Methodology) N = 36 Design thinking in digital learning contexts Improved engagement, systems thinking, and inclusion Xu et al. ( 2024 ) China Design Students Mixed methods (HyFlex PBL) N = 72 DT integrated into HyFlex project-based learning Critical thinking improvement, reflection, and ownership of learning Approach or methodology used in design thinking and learning experience. The study revealed that twenty-four (24) papers explicitly mentioned their approach used in the studies. In design thinking and learning experience, twelve studies used qualitative methods, amounting to 52%; further, eight of the studies employed quantitative methods, amounting to 35%, and three of the studies used mixed methods which was 13%. The evidence synthesized from Studies have shown that design thinking and learning experience have been widely and successfully integrated into higher education, especially in fields where innovation, creativity, and collaboration are core competencies. Design thinking strategies such as studio-based learning, project-based enquiry, flipped instruction, and experiential labs have constantly produced positive perceptions and outcomes. Several students report high engagement, enhanced creativity, and satisfaction with design thinking courses. These benefits are clearest when courses feature sturdy design, draw on educational theories, and support learners’ new ambiguity and iteration. This synthesis shows that Design Thinking is a scalable, learner-centered model with implications for curriculum reform, faculty training, and institutional innovation. Future research should investigate how to scale design thinking to address disciplinary differences and measure its long-term impact in higher education contexts. Conclusion The evidence from studies shows that design thinking and learning experience are seamlessly integrated into higher education, especially in fields that emphasize innovation, creativity, and teamwork. Methods such as studio-based learning, project-based enquiry, flipped instruction, and experiential labs have consistently produced positive results and favourable perceptions. DT approaches enhance high engagement. Incorporating gamification, active learning, or co-curricular activities. Instructional strategies merge design thinking with active learning strengthen motivation. students of design thinking significantly shape their motivation. Students value creativity, ownership, and collaboration, especially in project-based learning and flipped designs. DT significantly improved their STEAM self-efficacy and sustained interest. Students gain greater agency and ownership of their learning. Reflection played a vital role, not only for easing the design process but also deepening mathematical understanding and engagement. Emotional and reflective learning also mattered in Design thinking. For instance, studies found that empathy and thinking about feeling helped students in their learning experiences. Teachers’ feelings are affected by students’ results in design thinking courses. But learning empathy is challenging for students new to design thinking, thus requiring clear guidance. Higher education students reported greater satisfaction with DT-based courses due to relevance, interactive design, and real-world critical thinking skills in solving problems. Improvements in design thinking were seen in critical thinking, creative confidence, problem-solving, and soft skills, aligning with theories like constructivist learning theory, (a focus on active knowledge construction), experiential learning theory (emphasizing learning through experience and self-determination theory (enhancing motivation and soft skills. However, studies have shown variability in outcomes depending on the students’ experience level, gender, or discipline. Building on these results, support the integration of design thinking pedagogy. These include Constructivist Learning Theory, Experiential Learning Theory, Self-Determination Theory, Expectancy-Value Theory, Creative Process Theory, and the TPACK model. Declarations Author Contributions Conceptualization – G.A.A, K.F.O and E.A ; methodology – G.A.A, K.F.O and H.B.E; formal analysis – G.A.A, F.P.M.N, and D.E.A; writing-original draft preparation– K.F.A,G.A.A and K.F.O; writing-review and editing – G.AA, H.B.E and K.F.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding Declaration This research received no funding. Clinical Trial Number Not applicable. Ethics, Consent to Participate, and Consent to Publish declarations Not applicable. References Beckman, S. L., & Barry, M. (2007). Innovation as a Learning Process: EMBEDDING DESIGN THINKING . Blay, B. E., & Espartinez, A. S. (2024). Improving Digital Learning in Higher Education: Students’ Perspectives on Design Thinking Using Q-Methodology. Journal of Technology Education , 35 (2), 23–52. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v35i2.a.3 Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review , 86 (6), 84–92,141. Coleman, E., Shealy, T., Grohs, J., & Godwin, A. (2020). Design thinking among first-year and senior engineering students: A cross-sectional, national study measuring perceived ability. Journal of Engineering Education , 109 (1), 72–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20298 Daly, S. R., Mosyjowski, E. A., & Seifert, C. M. (2019). Teaching Creative Process across Disciplines. Journal of Creative Behavior , 53 (1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.158 Dorst, K. (2011). The core of “design thinking” and its application. Design Studies , 32 (6), 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006 Elsbach, K. D., & Stigliani, I. (2018). Design Thinking and Organizational Culture: A Review and Framework for Future Research. Journal of Management , 44 (6), 2274–2306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317744252 Gan, B. K. S., & Ouh, E. L. (2019). Designing Learning Activities for Experiential Learning in a Design Thinking Course. TALE 2019 - 2019 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Education . https://doi.org/10.1109/TALE48000.2019.9225989 Guaman-Quintanilla, S., Chiluiza, K., Everaert, P., & Valcke, M. (2018). Design Thinking in Higher Education: a Scoping Review. ICERI2018 Proceedings , 1 , 2954–2963. https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2018.1663 Guo, Y., Long, J. M., & Huynh, V. T. (2024). SustainableTransformation of Undergraduate Engineering Education in China through Sino-Australian Cooperation: A Case Study on Electro-Mechanical System. Sustainability (Switzerland) , 16 (8). https://doi.org/10.3390/su16083483 Guo, Y., Wang, X., Gao, Y., Yin, H., Ma, Q., & Chen, T. (2024). Flipped online teaching of histology and embryology with design thinking: design, practice and reflection. BMC Medical Education , 24 (1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05373-7 Hou, G. (2024). Correlation Among Teacher ICT Teaching, Teacher Immediacy Behaviors, Teacher–Student Rapport, and Student Engagement in Smart Classroom Teaching. Sustainability (Switzerland) , 16 (21). https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219592 Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design thinking: Past, present and possible futures. Creativity and Innovation Management , 22 (2), 121–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12023 Kamalipour, H., & Peimani, N. (2022). Learning and Teaching Urban Design through Design Studio Pedagogy: A Blended Studio on Transit Urbanism. Education Sciences , 12 (10). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12100712 Khoiri, N., Ristanto, S., & Kurniawan, A. F. (2023). Project-Based Learning Via Traditional Game in Physics Learning: Its Impact on Critical Thinking, Creative Thinking, and Collaborative Skills. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia , 12 (2), 286–292. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v12i2.43198 Kijima, R., Yang-Yoshihara, M., & Maekawa, M. S. (2021). Using design thinking to cultivate the next generation of female STEAM thinkers. International Journal of STEM Education , 8 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00271-6 Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I. Design and Culture , 3 (3), 285–306. https://doi.org/10.2752/175470811x13071166525216 Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Wong, B., & Hong, H.-Y. (2015). Design Thinking for Education. In Design Thinking for Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-444-3 Lake, D., Flannery, K., & Kearns, M. (2021). A Cross-Disciplines and Cross-Sector Mixed-Methods Examination of Design Thinking Practices and Outcome. Innovative Higher Education , 46 (3), 337–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-020-09539-1 Leslie, H. J. (2020). Trifecta of Student Engagement. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning , 13 (2), 149–173. https://doi.org/10.1108/jrit-10-2018-0024 Li, T., & Zhan, Z. (2022). A Systematic Review on Design Thinking Integrated Learning in K-12 Education. Applied Sciences (Switzerland) , 12 (16). https://doi.org/10.3390/app12168077 Lin, X., Luan, L., & Dai, Y. (2023). Exploring Chinese STEM college students’ expectations of effective online courses. International Journal of Chinese Education , 12 (2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/2212585X231188977 McLaughlin, J. E., Chen, E., Lake, D., Guo, W., Skywark, E. R., Chernik, A., & Liu, T. (2022). Design thinking teaching and learning in higher education: Experiences across four universities. PLoS ONE , 17 (3 March), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265902 Mentzer, N., Mohandas, L., Farrington, S., & Laux, D. (2022). Course Quality Improvement in Design Education. Journal of Technology Education , 33 (1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v33i1.a.2 Milovanovic, J., Shealy, T., & Katz, A. (2021). Higher perceived design thinking traits and active learning in design courses motivate engineering students to tackle energy sustainability in their careers. Sustainability (Switzerland) , 13 (22). https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212570 Mosely, G., Wright, N., & Wrigley, C. (2018). Facilitating design thinking: A comparison of design expertise. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 27 (August 2017), 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.02.004 Newton, D., Wang, Y., & Newton, L. (2022). ‘Allowing them to dream’: fostering creativity in mathematics undergraduates. Journal of Further and Higher Education , 46 (10), 1334–1346. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2022.2075719 Olewnik, A., Chang, Y., & Su, M. (2023). Co-curricular engagement among engineering undergrads: do they have the time and motivation? International Journal of STEM Education , 10 (1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00410-1 Razali, N. H., Ali, N. N. N., Safiyuddin, S. K., & Khalid, F. (2022). Design Thinking Approaches in Education and Their Challenges: A Systematic Literature Review. Creative Education , 13 (07), 2289–2299. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2022.137145 Shrestha, B., Poddar, M., & Khadka, S. (2023). How Does It Feel To Be a Design Thinking Teacher in Changing Times in Nepal? LEARNing Landscapes , 16 (1), 257–269. https://doi.org/10.36510/learnland.v16i1.1099 Suartama, I. K., Sudarma, I. K., Sudatha, I. G. W., Sukmana, A. I. W. I. Y., & Susiani, K. (2024). Student engagement and academic achievement: the effect of gamification on case and project-based online learning. Journal of Education and Learning , 18 (3), 976–990. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v18i3.21349 Taheri, M., Unterholzer, T., Hölzle, K., & Meinel, C. (2016). An educational perspective on design thinking learning outcomes. ISPIM Innovation Forum , March , 13–16. www.ispim.org. Teng, W., Ma, C., Pahlevansharif, S., & Turner, J. J. (2019). Graduate readiness for the employment market of the 4th industrial revolution: The development of soft employability skills. Education and Training , 61 (5), 590–604. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-07-2018-0154 Wahyuningsih, S., Satyananda, D., Qohar, A., & Atan, N. A. (2020). An integration of “online interactive apps” for learning application of graph theory to enhance creative problem solving of mathematics students. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies , 14 (12), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.3991/IJIM.V14I12.15583 Wijaya, T. T., Zhou, Y., Ware, A., & Hermita, N. (2021). Improving the Creative Thinking Skills of the Next Generation of Mathematics Teachers Using Dynamic Mathematics Software. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning , 16 (13), 212–226. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i13.21535 Wolcott, M. D., Castleberry, A. N., Johnson, C., Pick, A. M., & Persky, A. M. (2023). Lessons From Using Design Thinking to Develop the 2021 AACP Teachers’ Seminar. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education , 87 (2). https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe8990 Wrigley, C., & Straker, K. (2017). Design Thinking pedagogy: the Educational Design Ladder. Innovations in Education and Teaching International , 54 (4), 374–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1108214 Xu, J., Abdullah, Z., & Samah, N. A. (2024). Views of Design Students on Improvements in Critical Thinking Through PBL in China’s HyFlex Environment. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design , 14 (1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJOPCD.362000 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 14 May, 2026 Reviews received at journal 12 May, 2026 Reviews received at journal 03 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 03 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 02 May, 2026 Reviews received at journal 27 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 23 Apr, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 23 Apr, 2026 Editor invited by journal 14 Apr, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 08 Apr, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 08 Apr, 2026 First submitted to journal 04 Apr, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9319231","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Systematic Review","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":633620014,"identity":"3ae23c81-3cac-4b5f-bbef-f3f5518950ee","order_by":0,"name":"George Attah Aboagye","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"George","middleName":"Attah","lastName":"Aboagye","suffix":""},{"id":633620015,"identity":"51b82c78-e779-460a-91dc-7f10302c06ac","order_by":1,"name":"Kwame Fordjour Owusu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kwame","middleName":"Fordjour","lastName":"Owusu","suffix":""},{"id":633620016,"identity":"2f721452-9b6c-4e7c-8327-662596564f05","order_by":2,"name":"Emmanuel Aklasu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Emmanuel","middleName":"","lastName":"Aklasu","suffix":""},{"id":633620017,"identity":"314839d7-e8c9-41a5-a76f-c7b611cb1869","order_by":3,"name":"Frank Paul Mattews Nti","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Frank","middleName":"Paul Mattews","lastName":"Nti","suffix":""},{"id":633620020,"identity":"a2e201d3-f036-43a0-8286-3b162b4eeddc","order_by":4,"name":"Dorothy Enyonam Adamtey","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Dorothy","middleName":"Enyonam","lastName":"Adamtey","suffix":""},{"id":633620021,"identity":"9b191cf9-a024-440b-8d74-7f8006e38f7a","order_by":5,"name":"Kwadwo Fosu Duako","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kwadwo","middleName":"Fosu","lastName":"Duako","suffix":""},{"id":633620022,"identity":"7aa0418e-c415-400d-848f-02881e1ecbbc","order_by":6,"name":"Harry Barton Essel","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Harry","middleName":"Barton","lastName":"Essel","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-04-04 09:23:33","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9319231/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9319231/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":108489415,"identity":"83db0306-3284-43f4-a6a2-21f26a852a6f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-05 09:32:49","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":52901,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDesign thinking strategies\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9319231/v1/baaf6d83b834dfea9a655874.png"},{"id":108489417,"identity":"15ab1d11-25ef-445f-aa18-331fe0846e15","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-05 09:32:49","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":31477,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTheories emerging from design thinking and learning experience\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9319231/v1/de75bcaa918ac012289912bd.png"},{"id":108976241,"identity":"a795a488-bbff-4e1f-b7d9-8821ef691f2f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-11 11:00:35","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":71297,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eUnnumbered image in the \u003cstrong\u003eMethods\u003c/strong\u003e section.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"UNFig.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9319231/v1/6fe1a06bf390cab94a833192.png"},{"id":108980258,"identity":"6b677871-03d2-4868-b240-26d5ef6a0476","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-11 12:04:27","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":412262,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9319231/v1/21f1e2e6-a0d1-43f2-b054-17d0b2dcd87b.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eAssociation Between Design Thinking and Learning Experience in Higher Education: A Systematic Review\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDesign thinking has appeared as transformative approach to problem solving in higher education providing students with vital 21st century competencies and preparing them to address complex real-world problems or challenges. These competencies will foster problem-solving, through human centered methodologies in addressing creative and innovations. Design thinking, a human-centric method for revolutionary problem-solving, has surged in popularity recently, gaining a varied international audience and resulting in an increased demand for design thinking in higher Education that offer experiences of 21st century skills. It originated from Stanford University's design thinking paradigm, disseminated throughout more than 60 institutions worldwide, engages students from all disciplines in addressing real-world situations through design thinking methodology (Taheri et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). The discourse on design thinking, which varies in meaning according to context, is often neglected within the design domain. It comprises five separate discourses of 'designedly thinking', each with unique epistemological foundations, fostering creativity and innovation (Johansson-Sk\u0026ouml;ldberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Certain designers and researchers may link design thinking to a cognitive framework and differentiate between contemplation and action. However, there is still limited evidence on the impact of design thinking on student learning experiences and skills development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDesign Thinking (DT) is increasingly reorganized as important for equipping college graduates with practical, human-centered problem-solving skills, needed to address complex real-world issues. This recognition has prompting a new evaluation of faculty and student practices in higher education (McLaughlin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Beyond its origins in design domain, Design thinking is acknowledged as a modern paradigm in fields such as education, business, information technology, and medicine, enabling innovative solutions to multifaceted problems (Brown, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Dorst, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Li \u0026amp; Zhan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). What distinguishes design thinking in education is its unique approach to by incorporating designers' sensibilities and methodologies to harmonizes human needs with technological possibilities, transforming viable ideas into customer value and market potential (Guaman-Quintanilla et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). As such, there is growing necessity across multiple domains, in higher education to deliberately cultivate skills like problem-finding, problem-framing, and creative problem-solving. Incorporating theses competencies in educational curricula, is crucial for preparing students to succeed in the complex and shifting landscape of 21st century job market (McLaughlin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). These needs addressing effective strategies for competencies that impact student learning experiences in 21st century job market.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudents in higher education demonstrate problem-solving abilities through structured projects and innovative activities, necessitating design thinking skills that involve adaptable processes and iterative cycles for reflective creativity (Razali et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). For instance, Art programs or engineering, students employ design thinking process to ideate, prototype, and test solutions for community. Also, combining design thinking into interdisciplinary courses where students apply this method to address real-word challenges within the community. These show how design thinking is structured in higher education to develop 21st century competencies. Despite its growing popularity in recent years, Design Thinking remains insufficiently theorized and inadequately researched (Guaman-Quintanilla et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Kimbell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Again, the iteration design can be adjusted to improve student learning efficacy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDesign thinking, an innovative methodology in higher education, engages students from many disciplines collaboratively to address intricate challenges with a human-centered focus (Mosely et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Wrigley \u0026amp; Straker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Studies underscores the need of cultivating critical and creative thinking, communication, collaboration, and information literacy as vital competencies for the 21st century (Koh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). In Design Thinking educational content, the objective is to cultivate a multi-disciplinary curriculum that illustrates the integration of essential abilities within higher Education (Wrigley \u0026amp; Straker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Despite its advantages, there is still the question about how to incorporate multidisciplinary into curricular across varied higher education.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDesign thinking is a framework utilised in the creation of hardware, software, business models, organisations, and environments, progressing through iterative design and learning processes(Beckman \u0026amp; Barry, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, it aligns with experiential learning which improves design thinking by cultivating student choice, empathy, ideation, prototyping, and testing to obtain feedback, refine solutions, and comprehend user demands (Gan \u0026amp; Ouh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, Design thinking methods create emotional experiences and tangible artefacts, facilitating users' comprehension of the cultural contexts that enhance their effective application (Elsbach \u0026amp; Stigliani, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The practical aspect of these tools promotes reciprocal help.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDesign Thinking lacks a precise definition; however, 20 of 79 research evaluated its effects on students, identifying around 20 abilities, 7 learning outcomes, and 5 attitudes (Guaman-Quintanilla et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Again, it has been excessively simplified across multiple industries, resulting in a deficiency of design thinking specialists and a discontented research community (Dorst, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Mosely et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, Design Thinking holds potential for curricular development; yet, it necessitates empirical substantiation and evidence-based evaluation to prevent it from becoming a trend reliant on anecdotal accounts (Guaman-Quintanilla et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). It further shows a deficiency of statistically solid empirical investigations regarding the efficiency of DT in yielding consistent learning outcomes. The comprehension of de-disciplined design (DT) pedagogy in higher education is insufficient, requiring additional investigation to elucidate its possible connection to pedagogical praxis and problem-based learning frameworks (McLaughlin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, Educators ought to persist in DT-TL research by gathering data, formulating quantitative metrics, and executing longitudinal studies including professors, students, and project collaborators to achieve bigger, representative samples (McLaughlin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eYet, research is required to comprehend design competence and the implementation of design thinking, along with its effects on facilitators and students in higher educational environments(Mosely et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). There is an urgent need for existing empirical research to understand the impact of design thinking on students' experiences and learning outcomes in higher Education. The interdisciplinary approach once more holds the potential to transform Higher Education through design thinking. The present systematic analysis investigates how Design Thinking (DT) impacts on learning experiences, student perspectives, and pedagogical approaches in higher education across multiple disciplines. The study focused on these questions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow has design thinking being integrated into teaching strategies in higher education?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhat are university students\u0026rsquo; beliefs of their learning experiences on design thinking-based learning activities?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhat is the impact of design thinking on students\u0026rsquo; academic satisfaction and perceived learning outcomes?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhat methodological Approach has been used in design thinking and learning experience?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis systematic review will adhere to the PRISMA guidelines to ensure methodological rigor and transparency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSearch Strategy\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA comprehensive search of relevant databases, on Scopus was conducted keywords and search strings related to design thinking, learning experience and higher education.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\"Design thinking\" OR \"user-centric design\" OR \"creative problem-solving\" OR \"innovative thinking\" AND \"learning experience\" OR \"educational experience\" OR \"student engagement\" AND \"higher education\" OR \"university\" OR \"college\" AND PUBYEAR\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;2018 AND PUBYEAR\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;2025 AND PUBYEAR\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;2018 AND PUBYEAR\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;2025 AND ( LIMIT-TO ( OA, \"all\" ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( AFFILCOUNTRY, \"Indonesia\" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( AFFILCOUNTRY, \"United Kingdom\" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( AFFILCOUNTRY, \"China\" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( AFFILCOUNTRY, \"United States\" ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( DOCTYPE, \"ar\" ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA, \"ARTS\" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA, \"PSYC\" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA, \"ENGI\" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA, \"COMP\" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA, \"SOCI\" ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( LANGUAGE, \"English\" ) )\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eInclusion criteria\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudies that were employed include university students, faculty, and educational stakeholders are being conducted to implement design thinking in higher education. The studies should include article starting from 2018 to 31st May 2025.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe focus should be on design thinking as a teaching or learning strategy. Studies on how design thinking has been integrated into pedagogy, curriculum, or instructional design in higher education. The studies may include variations such as human-centered design, project-based learning involving design thinking, or innovation-based learning using design thinking principles. studies that integration of design thinking in education, learning experience, its impact on student perceptions, academic satisfaction, implementation challenges, and the development of theoretical frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eExclusion criteria\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudies on K-12 education, design thinking, opinion pieces, and lacking empirical data and relevance to developing contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eExtraction\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA literature search was performed using the Scopus database, where 538 results were found or obtained after automation by filtering. A total of 538 records were successfully extracted Scopus into CSV files to be screened by abstract and title. 509 were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. A total of 538 full-text reports were sent for retrieval, of which twenty-seven could not be obtained and 511 reports were assessed by screening the title and abstract in Microsoft spreadsheet. In the long run, twenty-nine studies were included based on the eligibility criteria.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results and discussions","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study results revealed that twenty-nine papers meet the criteria to be included in this systematic review.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eWhat are design thinking teaching strategies that have integrated into in higher education?\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcross the reviewed studies, several pedagogical strategies rooted in design thinking (DT) have been integrated into higher education context which includes projected-based learning, studio pedagogy, flipped learning, holistic and Transdisciplinary, Steam and Mathematics integration and Kansei Engineering and Traditional Games.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDesign Studio pedagogy has been frequently adopted in architecture and urban design disciplines, this strategy emphasizes iterative learning, collaboration, and tutor-student feedback loops (Daly et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) (Kamalipour \u0026amp; Peimani, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), where project-based learning had that were paired with design thinking to solve authentic problems through teamwork and prototyping (Khoiri et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Wahyuningsih et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Again, flipped classroom had been used in design thinking teaching strategies in higher education in medical and design education to promote critical inquiry and pre-class engagement (Hou, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). DT is effectively blended with flipped learning strategies, improving subject-specific skills and fostering autonomy (Guo, Wang, et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Mentzer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Further, PBL frameworks often integrate DT to promote real-world problem-solving, collaboration, and iteration (Blay \u0026amp; Espartinez, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Khoiri et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Suartama et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Xu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Holistic and transdisciplinary Promotes inclusion, reflection, and multivoiced designs to support collaborative learning implemented in sustainability education and inclusive teaching fostering systems thinking (Blay \u0026amp; Espartinez, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026rsquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntegration into higher education (Engagement and gamification). Design thinking served as a creative framework for problem-solving and ideation, Tools like CPS and interactive apps scaffold student creativity in STEM and mathematics, Strategies like Room2Educ8 and co-curricular design tasks foster hands-on, interdisciplinary learning. Kansei Engineering and Traditional Games: Used to adapt DT in culturally relevant or product-specific design contexts (Lake et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Olewnik et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Suartama et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Wahyuningsih et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) (Khoiri et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eUniversity Students’ Perceptions of Design Thinking-Based Learning\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDT strategies led to high engagement, especially when combined with gamification, active learning, or co-curricular involvement (Milovanovic et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Suartama et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Instructional strategies that integrate design thinking and active learning markedly enhance motivation, as students' perceptions of design thinking attributes affect their learning motivation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Creativity and Autonomy Students appreciated opportunities for creativity, ownership, and collaboration, particularly in PBL and flipped designs, and design thinking significantly improved their STEAM self-efficacy and sustained interest. In addition, the students displayed enhanced problem-solving skills and creativity. Design thinking empowered female students to take initiative in learning and increased their confidence. Also, design thinking encourages divergent thinking and creativity in mathematical problem solving.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudents experienced increased agency and ownership of their learning. The iterative nature of design thinking is aligned with mathematical reasoning processes. Reflection is central to both the design process and the mathematical understanding (Kijima et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Newton et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigher Education Students experienced increased agency and ownership of their learning. The iterative nature of design thinking aligned with mathematical reasoning process. Reflection is central to both the design process and mathematical understanding.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral studies noted how empathy and emotional reflection strengthened learning experiences (Leslie, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Shrestha et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Design decisions that support interaction, relevance, and usability are key to fostering student engagement. Suffice to say, students valued learning experiences that were meaningful, interactive, and technologically seamless. The Trifecta of Student Engagement model provides guidance for designing engaging online learning environments. Teaching and learning empathy is challenging\u0026rdquo; for students transitioning to design thinking. Teacher-student relationships contribute to student outcomes. Consequently, teachers are either frustrated or joyful, depending on classroom dynamics. Adaptability and reflecting on emotions are crucial for managing classroom emotions and facilitating student learning. Hence, teachers\u0026rsquo; emotions are directly proportional to students\u0026rsquo; outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn certain contexts (for example Nepal), students initially struggle with the ambiguity and emotional demands of DT and require effective facilitation (Shrestha et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Teaching and learning empathy is challenging\u0026rdquo; for students transitioning to design thinking.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eImpact of Design Thinking on Academic Satisfaction and Learning Outcomes\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigher education students reported greater satisfaction with DT-based courses due to relevance, interactive design, and real-world problem-solving skills (Guo, Long, et al., 2024; Wolcott et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). There was a significant increase in self-reported creativity, self-efficacy in producing novel ideas, the ability to solve problems, and help expand others\u0026rsquo; ideas. In addition, an iterative, human-centred approach enhances collaboration and creativity. Transdisciplinary collaboration has helped to bridge theory and practice. Moreover, improvements were observed in critical thinking, creative confidence, problem-solving, and soft skills (Teng et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Wijaya et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The quantitative findings by (Milovanovic et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) confirmed significant gains in motivation, collaboration, and creative thinking. Some studies have shown variability in outcomes depending on the students\u0026rsquo; experience level and gender(Kijima et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), or discipline (Coleman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eTheoretical frameworks or models have been used to examine or support the integration of design thinking pedagogy in higher education.\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheories used in design thinking and learning experience include constructivist Learning theory, Experiential Learning theory self-Determination theory, Expectancy-Value theory, creative process theory, Tpack.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe table below illustrates theories and authors in design thinking and learning experience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAuthors and the propound theories\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS/N\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTHEORIES\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAUTHORS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstructivist Learning Theories\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e( Daly et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), (Newton et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), (Coleman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), (Khoiri et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), (Lake et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), (Guo, Wang, et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e),(Kamalipour \u0026amp; Peimani, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-Determination Theory\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Milovanovic et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e); (Suartama et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExperiential Learning Theory (Kolb)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLake et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e); Daly et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) (Guo, Long, et al., 2024)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExpectancy-Value Theory (EVT)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Lin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Mentzer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCreative Process Theory\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e( Daly et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e); (Wahyuningsih et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTPACK\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Blay \u0026amp; Espartinez, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAuthors and findings\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAuthor(s) \u0026amp; Year\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCountry\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscipline\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudy Design\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSample (N)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntervention/DT Strategy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKey Outcomes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDaly et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMultidisciplinary (Creative Process)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQualitative (Case-based)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;42 undergraduates\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCreative Process Theory integrated into design thinking pedagogy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eImproved creativity, cross-disciplinary collaboration, and reflective learning\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eColeman et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUSA (multi-site)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEngineering Education\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuantitative (Survey)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1,200 (first-year and senior students)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNational study measuring DT perceptions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeniors scored higher on DT traits; self-reported design ability linked to problem-solving skills\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMilovanovic et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEngineering Sustainability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuantitative (Quasi-experimental)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;146\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDT-infused active learning in design courses\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIncreased motivation, creative thinking, and sustainability awareness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKijima et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJapan\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSTEAM (Female students)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMixed methods\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;58\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDT workshops to cultivate STEAM thinkers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnhanced female students\u0026rsquo; confidence, creativity, and divergent thinking\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLake et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAustralia \u0026amp; USA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCross-disciplinary\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMixed methods\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;110\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCross-sector DT practice analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eImproved problem-solving, teamwork, and reflective empathy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGuo, Wang, et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChina\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedical Education (Histology)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuantitative (Quasi-experimental)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;85 medical students\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFlipped classroom\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;DT activities\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIncreased autonomy, subject mastery, and critical inquiry\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBlay \u0026amp; Espartinez (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhilippines\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigher Education (Digital Learning)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQualitative (Q-Methodology)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDesign thinking in digital learning contexts\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eImproved engagement, systems thinking, and inclusion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eXu et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChina\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDesign Students\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMixed methods (HyFlex PBL)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;72\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDT integrated into HyFlex project-based learning\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCritical thinking improvement, reflection, and ownership of learning\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eApproach or methodology used in design thinking and learning experience.\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study revealed that twenty-four (24) papers explicitly mentioned their approach used in the studies. In design thinking and learning experience, twelve studies used qualitative methods, amounting to 52%; further, eight of the studies employed quantitative methods, amounting to 35%, and three of the studies used mixed methods which was 13%.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe evidence synthesized from Studies have shown that design thinking and learning experience have been widely and successfully integrated into higher education, especially in fields where innovation, creativity, and collaboration are core competencies. Design thinking strategies such as studio-based learning, project-based enquiry, flipped instruction, and experiential labs have constantly produced positive perceptions and outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral students report high engagement, enhanced creativity, and satisfaction with design thinking courses. These benefits are clearest when courses feature sturdy design, draw on educational theories, and support learners\u0026rsquo; new ambiguity and iteration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis synthesis shows that Design Thinking is a scalable, learner-centered model with implications for curriculum reform, faculty training, and institutional innovation. Future research should investigate how to scale design thinking to address disciplinary differences and measure its long-term impact in higher education contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe evidence from studies shows that design thinking and learning experience are seamlessly integrated into higher education, especially in fields that emphasize innovation, creativity, and teamwork. Methods such as studio-based learning, project-based enquiry, flipped instruction, and experiential labs have consistently produced positive results and favourable perceptions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDT approaches enhance high engagement. Incorporating gamification, active learning, or co-curricular activities. Instructional strategies merge design thinking with active learning strengthen motivation. students of design thinking significantly shape their motivation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudents value creativity, ownership, and collaboration, especially in project-based learning and flipped designs. DT significantly improved their STEAM self-efficacy and sustained interest. Students gain greater agency and ownership of their learning. Reflection played a vital role, not only for easing the design process but also deepening mathematical understanding and engagement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmotional and reflective learning also mattered in Design thinking. For instance, studies found that empathy and thinking about feeling helped students in their learning experiences. Teachers\u0026rsquo; feelings are affected by students\u0026rsquo; results in design thinking courses. But learning empathy is challenging for students new to design thinking, thus requiring clear guidance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigher education students reported greater satisfaction with DT-based courses due to relevance, interactive design, and real-world critical thinking skills in solving problems. Improvements in design thinking were seen in critical thinking, creative confidence, problem-solving, and soft skills, aligning with theories like constructivist learning theory, (a focus on active knowledge construction), experiential learning theory (emphasizing learning through experience and self-determination theory (enhancing motivation and soft skills. However, studies have shown variability in outcomes depending on the students\u0026rsquo; experience level, gender, or discipline.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuilding on these results, support the integration of design thinking pedagogy. These include Constructivist Learning Theory, Experiential Learning Theory, Self-Determination Theory, Expectancy-Value Theory, Creative Process Theory, and the TPACK model.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contributions \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConceptualization \u0026ndash; G.A.A, K.F.O and E.A ; methodology \u0026ndash; G.A.A, K.F.O and H.B.E; formal analysis \u0026ndash; G.A.A, F.P.M.N, and D.E.A; writing-original draft preparation\u0026ndash; K.F.A,G.A.A and K.F.O; writing-review and editing \u0026ndash; G.AA, H.B.E and K.F.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding Declaration\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research received no funding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical Trial Number\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics, Consent to Participate, and Consent to Publish declarations\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;Not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeckman, S. L., \u0026amp; Barry, M. (2007). \u003cem\u003eInnovation as a Learning Process: EMBEDDING DESIGN THINKING\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlay, B. E., \u0026amp; Espartinez, A. S. (2024). Improving Digital Learning in Higher Education: Students\u0026rsquo; Perspectives on Design Thinking Using Q-Methodology. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Technology Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(2), 23\u0026ndash;52. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v35i2.a.3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown, T. (2008). Design thinking. \u003cem\u003eHarvard Business Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e86\u003c/em\u003e(6), 84\u0026ndash;92,141.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eColeman, E., Shealy, T., Grohs, J., \u0026amp; Godwin, A. (2020). Design thinking among first-year and senior engineering students: A cross-sectional, national study measuring perceived ability. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Engineering Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e109\u003c/em\u003e(1), 72\u0026ndash;87. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20298\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDaly, S. R., Mosyjowski, E. A., \u0026amp; Seifert, C. M. (2019). Teaching Creative Process across Disciplines. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Creative Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e53\u003c/em\u003e(1), 5\u0026ndash;17. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.158\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDorst, K. (2011). The core of \u0026ldquo;design thinking\u0026rdquo; and its application. \u003cem\u003eDesign Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(6), 521\u0026ndash;532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eElsbach, K. D., \u0026amp; Stigliani, I. (2018). Design Thinking and Organizational Culture: A Review and Framework for Future Research. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e44\u003c/em\u003e(6), 2274\u0026ndash;2306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317744252\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGan, B. K. S., \u0026amp; Ouh, E. L. (2019). Designing Learning Activities for Experiential Learning in a Design Thinking Course. \u003cem\u003eTALE 2019 - 2019 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Education\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1109/TALE48000.2019.9225989\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuaman-Quintanilla, S., Chiluiza, K., Everaert, P., \u0026amp; Valcke, M. (2018). Design Thinking in Higher Education: a Scoping Review. \u003cem\u003eICERI2018 Proceedings\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e, 2954\u0026ndash;2963. https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2018.1663\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuo, Y., Long, J. M., \u0026amp; Huynh, V. T. (2024). SustainableTransformation of Undergraduate Engineering Education in China through Sino-Australian Cooperation: A Case Study on Electro-Mechanical System. \u003cem\u003eSustainability (Switzerland) \u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/su16083483\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuo, Y., Wang, X., Gao, Y., Yin, H., Ma, Q., \u0026amp; Chen, T. (2024). Flipped online teaching of histology and embryology with design thinking: design, practice and reflection. \u003cem\u003eBMC Medical Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05373-7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHou, G. (2024). Correlation Among Teacher ICT Teaching, Teacher Immediacy Behaviors, Teacher\u0026ndash;Student Rapport, and Student Engagement in Smart Classroom Teaching. \u003cem\u003eSustainability (Switzerland)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(21). https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219592\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJohansson-Sk\u0026ouml;ldberg, U., Woodilla, J., \u0026amp; \u0026Ccedil;etinkaya, M. (2013). Design thinking: Past, present and possible futures. \u003cem\u003eCreativity and Innovation Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(2), 121\u0026ndash;146. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12023\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKamalipour, H., \u0026amp; Peimani, N. (2022). Learning and Teaching Urban Design through Design Studio Pedagogy: A Blended Studio on Transit Urbanism. \u003cem\u003eEducation Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12100712\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKhoiri, N., Ristanto, S., \u0026amp; Kurniawan, A. F. (2023). Project-Based Learning Via Traditional Game in Physics Learning: Its Impact on Critical Thinking, Creative Thinking, and Collaborative Skills. \u003cem\u003eJurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(2), 286\u0026ndash;292. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v12i2.43198\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKijima, R., Yang-Yoshihara, M., \u0026amp; Maekawa, M. S. (2021). Using design thinking to cultivate the next generation of female STEAM thinkers. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of STEM Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00271-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I. \u003cem\u003eDesign and Culture\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(3), 285\u0026ndash;306. https://doi.org/10.2752/175470811x13071166525216\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKoh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Wong, B., \u0026amp; Hong, H.-Y. (2015). Design Thinking for Education. In \u003cem\u003eDesign Thinking for Education\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-444-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLake, D., Flannery, K., \u0026amp; Kearns, M. (2021). A Cross-Disciplines and Cross-Sector Mixed-Methods Examination of Design Thinking Practices and Outcome. \u003cem\u003eInnovative Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e46\u003c/em\u003e(3), 337\u0026ndash;356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-020-09539-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeslie, H. J. (2020). Trifecta of Student Engagement. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Research in Innovative Teaching \u0026amp; Learning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(2), 149\u0026ndash;173. https://doi.org/10.1108/jrit-10-2018-0024\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi, T., \u0026amp; Zhan, Z. (2022). A Systematic Review on Design Thinking Integrated Learning in K-12 Education. \u003cem\u003eApplied Sciences (Switzerland)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(16). https://doi.org/10.3390/app12168077\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLin, X., Luan, L., \u0026amp; Dai, Y. (2023). Exploring Chinese STEM college students\u0026rsquo; expectations of effective online courses. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Chinese Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(2), 1\u0026ndash;20. https://doi.org/10.1177/2212585X231188977\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcLaughlin, J. E., Chen, E., Lake, D., Guo, W., Skywark, E. R., Chernik, A., \u0026amp; Liu, T. (2022). Design thinking teaching and learning in higher education: Experiences across four universities. \u003cem\u003ePLoS ONE\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(3 March), 1\u0026ndash;16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265902\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMentzer, N., Mohandas, L., Farrington, S., \u0026amp; Laux, D. (2022). Course Quality Improvement in Design Education. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Technology Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(1), 21\u0026ndash;37. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v33i1.a.2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMilovanovic, J., Shealy, T., \u0026amp; Katz, A. (2021). Higher perceived design thinking traits and active learning in design courses motivate engineering students to tackle energy sustainability in their careers. \u003cem\u003eSustainability (Switzerland)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(22). https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212570\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMosely, G., Wright, N., \u0026amp; Wrigley, C. (2018). Facilitating design thinking: A comparison of design expertise. \u003cem\u003eThinking Skills and Creativity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(August 2017), 177\u0026ndash;189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.02.004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNewton, D., Wang, Y., \u0026amp; Newton, L. (2022). \u0026lsquo;Allowing them to dream\u0026rsquo;: fostering creativity in mathematics undergraduates. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Further and Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e46\u003c/em\u003e(10), 1334\u0026ndash;1346. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2022.2075719\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOlewnik, A., Chang, Y., \u0026amp; Su, M. (2023). Co-curricular engagement among engineering undergrads: do they have the time and motivation? \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of STEM Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00410-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRazali, N. H., Ali, N. N. N., Safiyuddin, S. K., \u0026amp; Khalid, F. (2022). Design Thinking Approaches in Education and Their Challenges: A Systematic Literature Review. \u003cem\u003eCreative Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(07), 2289\u0026ndash;2299. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2022.137145\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShrestha, B., Poddar, M., \u0026amp; Khadka, S. (2023). How Does It Feel To Be a Design Thinking Teacher in Changing Times in Nepal? \u003cem\u003eLEARNing Landscapes\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(1), 257\u0026ndash;269. https://doi.org/10.36510/learnland.v16i1.1099\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSuartama, I. K., Sudarma, I. K., Sudatha, I. G. W., Sukmana, A. I. W. I. Y., \u0026amp; Susiani, K. (2024). Student engagement and academic achievement: the effect of gamification on case and project-based online learning. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Education and Learning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(3), 976\u0026ndash;990. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v18i3.21349\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTaheri, M., Unterholzer, T., H\u0026ouml;lzle, K., \u0026amp; Meinel, C. (2016). An educational perspective on design thinking learning outcomes. \u003cem\u003eISPIM Innovation Forum\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eMarch\u003c/em\u003e, 13\u0026ndash;16. www.ispim.org.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTeng, W., Ma, C., Pahlevansharif, S., \u0026amp; Turner, J. J. (2019). Graduate readiness for the employment market of the 4th industrial revolution: The development of soft employability skills. \u003cem\u003eEducation and Training\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e61\u003c/em\u003e(5), 590\u0026ndash;604. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-07-2018-0154\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWahyuningsih, S., Satyananda, D., Qohar, A., \u0026amp; Atan, N. A. (2020). An integration of \u0026ldquo;online interactive apps\u0026rdquo; for learning application of graph theory to enhance creative problem solving of mathematics students. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(12), 97\u0026ndash;109. https://doi.org/10.3991/IJIM.V14I12.15583\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWijaya, T. T., Zhou, Y., Ware, A., \u0026amp; Hermita, N. (2021). Improving the Creative Thinking Skills of the Next Generation of Mathematics Teachers Using Dynamic Mathematics Software. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(13), 212\u0026ndash;226. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i13.21535\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWolcott, M. D., Castleberry, A. N., Johnson, C., Pick, A. M., \u0026amp; Persky, A. M. (2023). Lessons From Using Design Thinking to Develop the 2021 AACP Teachers\u0026rsquo; Seminar. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Pharmaceutical Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e87\u003c/em\u003e(2). https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe8990\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWrigley, C., \u0026amp; Straker, K. (2017). Design Thinking pedagogy: the Educational Design Ladder. \u003cem\u003eInnovations in Education and Teaching International\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e54\u003c/em\u003e(4), 374\u0026ndash;385. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1108214\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXu, J., Abdullah, Z., \u0026amp; Samah, N. A. (2024). Views of Design Students on Improvements in Critical Thinking Through PBL in China\u0026rsquo;s HyFlex Environment. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;23. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJOPCD.362000\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Design Thinking, Learning Experience, Higher Education, Student Engagement, Pedagogical Strategies, Systematic Review, pedagogical innovation, PRISMA","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9319231/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9319231/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis systematic review investigates the association between design thinking (DT) on higher education learning experiences. Evidence from twenty-nine empirical studies, the review examines how DT strategies are integrated into instructional practices and their influence on student engagement, creativity, academic satisfaction, and learning outcomes. It shows diverse pedagogical strategies, including project-based learning, design studio pedagogy, flipped learning, STEAM integration, and culturally relevant methods. The review finds that Design thinking-based instructions improve student motivation, creativity, critical thinking, and ownership of their learning. The review recommends further research into DT's scalability, contextual variations, and longitudinal effects on student learning.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Association Between Design Thinking and Learning Experience in Higher Education: A Systematic Review","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-05-05 09:32:45","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9319231/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-05-14T08:19:38+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-12T10:39:18+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-03T13:03:40+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"335106542473616747908553068140475469204","date":"2026-05-03T11:53:31+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"18760860390121136873001245557918668124","date":"2026-05-02T11:00:30+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-27T04:08:10+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"49049883817894911334919301046743416168","date":"2026-04-23T08:45:59+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-04-23T07:45:57+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2026-04-14T04:43:42+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-04-08T11:02:15+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-04-08T11:01:44+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Education","date":"2026-04-04T09:19:04+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"a36e187c-b2f1-4a62-af24-f5547348deb2","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 5th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-05-14T08:19:38+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-12T10:39:18+00:00","index":84,"fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-03T13:03:40+00:00","index":80,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"335106542473616747908553068140475469204","date":"2026-05-03T11:53:31+00:00","index":79,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"18760860390121136873001245557918668124","date":"2026-05-02T11:00:30+00:00","index":78,"fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"in-revision","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-14T08:24:57+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-05-05 09:32:45","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9319231","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9319231","identity":"rs-9319231","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}