The central problem the review tackles is conceptual. Design Thinking is variously described as a process, a method, a mindset, or a pedagogical framework, and many studies use these labels interchangeably without explaining what they actually mean. The concept traces its modern popularity to Stanford University’s design school, from which it spread to more than 60 institutions worldwide, but scholars have long complained that the term is under-theorised and oversimplified. One influential analysis identified five distinct discourses of Design Thinking, ranging from the designer’s unique way of knowing to its use as a tool for organisational innovation management. To cut through this confusion, the review’s authors operationalised Design Thinking as a pedagogical strategy sharing four core features: human-centred framing, iterative inquiry, collaborative idea generation, and reflection on solutions. Only studies that demonstrated these features in a structured teaching or learning context were included.

The methodology followed the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. The team searched the Scopus database, chosen for its broad multidisciplinary coverage of education and social science journals, using a Boolean string combining Design Thinking terms with learning experience and higher education terms. The initial search produced 588 records, which were screened by title and abstract down to 70 candidate reports. After full-text retrieval and eligibility assessment, 27 empirical studies made the final cut. Studies were excluded if they focused on K-12 education, treated Design Thinking purely as a business innovation tool, or lacked empirical data. The extracted information covered author, year, country, discipline, study design, student perceptions, academic satisfaction, theoretical framework, and key findings, which were then synthesised thematically to answer the review’s four research questions.

The first question concerned how Design Thinking is actually integrated into university teaching. The answer turned out to be remarkably diverse. Project-based learning was the most frequently reported strategy, followed by flipped learning and design studio pedagogy, with holistic and transdisciplinary approaches appearing less often. Project-based approaches dominated because they allow students to grapple with authentic problems, work collaboratively, generate ideas, build prototypes, and exchange feedback in a single structured cycle. Design studio pedagogy, rooted in architecture and urban design education, emphasises iterative critique and tutor-student feedback loops, in which students refine their solutions through repeated rounds of presentation and criticism. Flipped classroom models asked students to engage with materials before class, freeing classroom time for application and collaborative design work.

Beyond these three dominant models, the review documented a striking range of adaptations across disciplines. Design Thinking has been woven into STEAM and mathematics education, digital learning platforms, gamified courses, Kansei Engineering, traditional games, and co-curricular design tasks. Studies spanned engineering, architecture, medical education, art, sustainability, and online learning environments. This breadth demonstrates that Design Thinking is not confined to design disciplines; it functions as what the authors call an adaptable instructional logic that can be reshaped to fit different fields. That flexibility is a genuine strength, allowing the approach to respond to varied disciplinary needs, but it also creates conceptual ambiguity, since some studies appear to label ordinary active learning strategies as Design Thinking without clearly explaining which principles they applied.

On the question of student experience, the findings were largely positive but nuanced. Students consistently perceived Design Thinking-based learning as more engaging than traditional teacher-centred instruction, particularly when it was combined with gamification, project work, or co-curricular activities. Many reported valuing the opportunity to generate ideas, test alternatives, and build confidence in their creative abilities, which the authors link to a stronger sense of ownership over learning. Collaboration emerged as another recurring theme, with students negotiating ideas, giving and receiving peer feedback, and learning through shared problem-solving, a pattern that aligns closely with social learning theory. Empathy also surfaced as a distinctive feature, since students had to understand users, stakeholders, or communities before proposing solutions, though practising empathy proved difficult for those unfamiliar with reflective, user-centred inquiry.

Not every experience was comfortable. The review found that students often struggled with the uncertainty inherent in Design Thinking tasks. Unlike conventional assignments with fixed correct answers, Design Thinking requires learners to tolerate ambiguity, revise their ideas repeatedly, and accept failure as a normal part of the learning process. While this discomfort can drive deep learning, it can also produce anxiety in students who have never encountered open-ended inquiry. Crucially, the review found that Design Thinking does not automatically produce positive outcomes. Students gained the most when instructors provided clear tasks, structured feedback, emotional support, and careful guidance through the iterative stages. Without effective facilitation, the method can become confusing, overly broad, or emotionally demanding for both students and instructors, a finding the authors flag as an underexamined issue of conceptual and emotional labour.

The evidence on measurable learning outcomes was thinner than the enthusiasm surrounding the method. Several studies relied on students’ self-reported perceptions of creativity, autonomy, motivation, and problem-solving gains, results the authors say should be interpreted with caution because perceived improvements do not necessarily reflect objective gains. Fewer studies reported measured improvements in creative thinking, critical thinking, subject mastery, or academic achievement, and those that did suggest Design Thinking activities may contribute to gains in collaboration, motivation, and discipline-specific learning. Behavioural outcomes were more consistently documented, with multiple studies reporting increased participation, ideation, prototyping, reflection, and persistence. Course satisfaction was generally higher when Design Thinking courses were interactive, connected to real-world problems, and supported by clear instructional design, though satisfaction varied across disciplines, genders, prior experience levels, and cultural contexts.

The theoretical landscape underpinning this research proved fragmented in its own way. The reviewed studies drew on constructivist learning theory, experiential learning theory, self-determination theory, expectancy-value theory, creative process theory, and the TPACK model, which addresses the integration of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge. Methodologically, qualitative approaches dominated, accounting for 52 percent of the studies that described their approach, followed by quantitative methods at 35 percent and mixed methods at 13 percent. This qualitative emphasis is valuable for capturing student experiences and classroom interactions, but it limits the field’s ability to establish causal claims about Design Thinking’s effectiveness. The authors argue that future research needs longitudinal designs, control groups, and comparisons against non-Design Thinking active learning strategies to determine whether reported gains in creativity, confidence, and satisfaction persist beyond a single course.

The review’s ultimate contribution is a reframing rather than a simple endorsement. Design Thinking, the authors conclude, works as a flexible pedagogical logic whose meaning and effects depend heavily on how it is operationalised, facilitated, and assessed. It should not be treated as a universal solution but as a pedagogy requiring contextual adaptation to each discipline, cohort, and institutional setting. The findings carry practical implications for curriculum reform, faculty training, and institutional innovation, suggesting universities that invest in proper facilitation and structured support are most likely to see returns. At the same time, the authors call for a validated instrument to assess Design Thinking-based learning, clearer definitions in future studies, and investigation into how instructors and students manage the empathy, frustration, and ambiguity the method demands. For now, the message to higher education is clear: Design Thinking can genuinely transform learning experiences, but only when implemented with rigour rather than hype.

Subject of Research: Design Thinking as a pedagogical strategy in higher education learning experiences

Article Title: A systematic review of Design Thinking as a pedagogical strategy in higher education learning experiences

Article References: Aboagye, G. A., Owusu, K. F., Aklasu, E., Nti, F. P. M., Adamtey, D. E., Duako, K. F., & Essel, H. B. (2026). A systematic review of Design Thinking as a pedagogical strategy in higher education learning experiences. Discover Education, 5(1), Article 803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-026-02088-3

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s44217-026-02088-3

Keywords: Design Thinking, higher education, pedagogy, systematic review, student engagement, learning outcomes, project-based learning, design studio pedagogy, flipped learning, creativity, student satisfaction, PRISMA