Luis Felipe Alvarado
95% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
- Saint Ignatius of Loyola University, Lima, Peru
Design thinking stands out as a methodology that promotes creativity, user-oriented approach and interdisciplinary collaboration and has emerged as an active teaching methodology that encourages the development of practical skills and effective solving of complex problems. A documentary type research was carried out whose objective was to identify studies that explore the use of design thinking as an active methodology in higher education. Methodologically, it was approached from the principles of the PRISMA declaration, establishing as inclusion parameters research included in the period from 2014 to 2024, studies disseminated in scientific publications, studies that directly address design thinking, containing at least one of the descriptors “design thinking” or “higher education,” disseminated in Spanish or English and studies with open access format, which yielded a total of 28 documents included in the review. The findings of this review highlight the effectiveness of design thinking to improve the learning experience of students by encouraging their active participation, critical thinking and interdisciplinary collaboration.
1 Introduction
University-level education is in a constant challenge of adjusting to a constantly evolving environment, where creative potential and solving complex problems are fundamental skills for educational performance. In this context, design thinking (DT) has emerged as an active teaching methodology that encourages user-centered approach, creativity and interdisciplinary collaboration (Henriksen et al., 2017; Serrano and Blázquez, 2016). In addition to these skills, the DT has been associated with the development of problem-solving skills, critical thinking and the ability to work in dynamic and complex environments, crucial aspects in the training of university students to face the challenges of today’s working world (Bertão et al., 2023; González-González, 2015).
The DT is based on an iterative process that includes five main phases: empathy, definition, ideation, prototype and testing. These phases not only serve to address problems effectively, but also promote innovation by challenging assumptions and generating novel solutions (Cabana et al., 2019; Mosely et al., 2018). Within these phases, the importance of the prototype and testing phase is highlighted, as it allows students to experiment with concrete solutions and receive feedback, which contributes to continuous improvement and the development of more effective solutions adapted to the needs of the end user (Krüger and Cejas Sainz, 2022).
The user-centered approach of the DT implies understanding the needs, aspirations and experiences of end users (Calavia et al., 2023). This holistic perspective allows educators to design educational activities that are relevant, meaningful and motivating for students (Vargas Márquez et al., 2021). In addition to understanding the needs of the end user, the user-centered approach also involves considering their emotions, values and previous experiences, which contributes to the creation of more personalized and meaningful educational experiences (Oliveros Niebles et al., 2016).
A fundamental characteristic of the DT is its ability to foster originality and innovation. By exploring multiple ideas and solutions, students acquire reflective and creative analysis skills that are fundamental in an increasingly diverse and dynamic environment (Latorre-Cosculluela et al., 2020). Likewise, the DT also promotes students’ ability to question the status quo, propose disruptive ideas and generate solutions that address complex challenges in an innovative and effective way (Lara Carabi et al., 2023).
In addition to creativity, the DT promotes cooperation and collaboration in groups. By involving students from different disciplines in interdisciplinary projects, collaborative learning and the appreciation of diverse perspectives are promoted, guiding students to address challenges of the current environment that require integrative solutions (Arias Flores et al., 2019). This interdisciplinary collaboration not only enriches the learning process by incorporating diverse perspectives and knowledge, but also prepares students to work in multidisciplinary teams in their professional future, thus improving their ability to face complex challenges in a collaborative way (Moreira-Cedeño et al., 2021).
Additionally, design thinking encourages experimentation and learning through error. Students are encouraged to try new ideas, accept feedback and adjust their approaches in an iterative cycle of continuous improvement. This active and adaptive learning mentality prepares them to face the changing and complex challenges of today’s society, developing a mindset of resilience and capacity for constant innovation (Del Moral Pérez et al., 2018). Within this learning cycle, it is important to highlight the importance of reflection on students’ experience and ability to learn from failures and challenges, transforming them into opportunities for growth and improvement in their educational and professional process (Barbosa-Quintero and Estupiñán-Ortiz, 2023).
Based on what has been pointed out in the preceding paragraphs, the following research question arises: how has the DT been explored and used as an active methodology in higher education? In response to this question, this systematic review seeks to explore how the DT is used in higher education to develop skills such as problem solving, critical thinking and the ability to work in complex environments. Thus, the research objective is to identify studies that explore the use of design thinking as an active methodology in higher education.
By understanding more in depth how the DT can optimize the educational experience of students and prepare them to address the challenges that arise, it will be possible to move towards a more innovative, relevant higher education focused on the holistic development of students. This article focuses on examining the use of DT as an active methodology in higher education, particularly in its pedagogical application by instructors and its impact on the development of key competencies in students. Through a review of studies that analyze its implementation in university education, the aim is to offer an overview of the benefits and challenges of integrating the DT into teaching, with emphasis on pedagogical innovation and the improvement of teaching practice. This approach will identify patterns, good practices and possible areas for improvement in the implementation of DT as an educational strategy in the training of university students, providing a basis for future research and pedagogical applications.
This systematic review is justified in the context of the need to continuously adapt and improve educational practices in higher education. Design thinking offers a methodological framework that can revolutionize the way current educational challenges are addressed. Its user-centered approach, constant innovation and creative problem solving provides a unique opportunity to enrich the learning experience of university students. By deepening the research on how design thinking is implemented and its effects in the university context, this review seeks to provide valuable knowledge to inform pedagogical decision-making and promote an educational culture that values creativity, collaboration and adaptability in the teaching-learning process.
2 Methodology
This study is based on a systematic descriptive review, following the guidelines established by PRISMA ACTUALIZADA in 2020 (Page et al., 2021). In this sense, the recommendations of Urrútia and Bonfill (2010) were adopted, who propose a series of steps or moments to approach this type of research in a rigorous way. First, the objective of the review was formulated, clearly establishing what the research would seek to achieve. Then the search equations were defined, that is, the key terms and the search criteria that would be used to identify the relevant studies with respect to the topic of study were determined.
Subsequently, the parameters of inclusion and exclusion of documents were defined, which served to determine which studies would be considered in the review and which would be excluded. The review of the selected texts was carried out, where the studies and educational practices that use the DT as a pedagogical approach in university education were analyzed in detail. Then an analysis of the selected sources was carried out, evaluating the quality and relevance of each study to respond to the research objective and finally, the results and conclusions were presented.
For the search of information, the databases Scopus, Dialnet, and Google Scholar were selected. Scopus is widely recognized in the academic community for its extensive coverage of peer-reviewed journals and its ability to offer reliable bibliometric data, which ensures a high level of quality in published studies (Scopus, 2017). Dialnet, on the other hand, is an outstanding platform in the Ibero-American field for its access to a wide range of academic documents, especially in social sciences and humanities and its rigorous selection process (Gregorio-Chaviano et al., 2021). Google Scholar is valued for its ability to index a large amount of academic literature, including articles, theses and books, which makes it an essential tool for the exhaustive search of academic literature (Torres-Salinas et al., 2009). These databases were selected due to their recognition and reliability in the scientific community, ensuring that the documents considered meet high standards of quality and academic rigor.
Once the search engines had been determined, the inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined, with the inclusion criteria being: (a) research included in the period from 2014 to 2024, (b) studies published in scientific publications, (c) studies that directly address design thinking, (d) studies that contained at least one of the descriptors “design thinking” and “higher education,” (e) research published in Spanish or English and (f) studies with Open Access format, while the exclusion criteria were: (a) studies prior to 2014, (b) undergraduate or postgraduate theses, (c) editorials, opinion articles and (d) studies with restricted access.
For the recovery of the literature, key words that helped to construct the search equations were determined, being these ““design thinking,” “higher education,” “active methodology,” “teaching model,” “formative processes” “teaching-learning,” which helped to configure the search equations:
• “Design thinking and higher education.”
• “Design thinking AND teaching methodology” OR “Design thinking AND teaching model.
• “Design thinking AND teaching AND training process” OR” Design thinking AND teaching/learning process.”
A review and selection of the bibliography obtained was carried out, considering criteria such as the date of publication, authorship details, geographical origin and source of the documents. Initially, the emerging publications were identified according to the search equations in the Scopus, Dialnet and Google Scholar databases. First of all, duplicate documents were removed, resulting in a total of 152 unique publications. From these, those investigations prior to the year 2014, undergraduate or postgraduate thesis were excluded; and finally discarding editorials, blogs, opinion articles and studies of restricted access. This process resulted in a total of 28 documents selected for review (see Figure 1).
Figure 1
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart.
3 Results
After carrying out the search and selection of documents, it was possible to identify a set of twenty-eight (n = 28) that were selected for review. These documents have been structured and organized, providing information of the publication, giving details about the authorship/year, the database where they were obtained and the country of origin of each study, as detailed below:
[1] Yao, L., Chen, X., & Wu, Q. (2024). Undergraduate nursing students’ learning experiences using design thinking on a human development course: A phenomenological study. Scopus, China.
[2] Hsing-Yuan, W. (2023a). Design thinking competence as self-perceived by nursing students in Taiwan. Scopus, China.
[3] Hsing-Yuan, W. (2023b). Measuring design thinking competence in Taiwanese nursing students: A cross-cultural instrument adaptation. Scopus, China.
[4] Yi-lin, L., et al. (2023). Enhancing university students’ creative confidence, learning motivation, and team creative performance in design thinking using a digital visual collaborative environment. Scopus, China.
[5] Shiyu, Z. & Chengfeng, Z. (2023). Promoting design thinking and creativity by making: A quasi-experiment in the information technology course. Scopus, China.
[6] Ní Shé, C. & Farrell, G. (2021). Integrating design thinking into instructional design: The #OpenTeach case study. Scopus, Scotland.
[7] González-Granados, L. (2022). Design thinking as an agent of transformation in training processes. Scopus, Colombia.
[8] Meng-Fang, T. (2021). Exploration of students’ integrative skills developed in the design thinking of a Psychology course. Scopus, China.
[9] Thi-Huyen, D., et al. (2021). The Impact of Design Thinking on Problem Solving and Teamwork Mindset in A Flipped Classroom. Scopus, China.
[10] Jamal, S., et al. (2021). Re-Visiting Design Thinking for Learning and Practice: Critical Pedagogy, Conative Empathy. Scopus, USA.
[11] Lynch, M., et al. (2021). Combining technology and entrepreneurial education through design thinking: Students’ reflections on the learning process. Scopus, Norway.
[12] Albay, A. & Eisma, E. (2021). Performance task assessment supported by the design thinking process: Results from a true experimental research. Scopus, Philippines.
[13] Magro Gutiérrez, M. & Carrascal Domínguez, J. (2019). Design Thinking as a resource and methodology for visual literacy and learning in preschools of multigrade schools in Mexico. Dialnet, Spain.
[14] Campodonicus-Centurion, F., et al. (2019). Design thinking traits of teachers immersed in the orange economy. Dialnet, Peru.
[15] Deitte, L. & Omary, M. (2019). The Power of Design Thinking in Medical Education. Scopus, USA.
[16] Laferriere, R., et al. (2019). Addressing cognitive challenges in applying design thinking for opportunity discovery: Reflections from a design thinking team. Scopus, Australia.
[17] Beaird, G., et al. (2018). Design thinking: Opportunities for application in nursing education. Scopus, USA.
[18] Ejsing-Duun, S. & Skovbjerg, H. (2018). Design as a Mode of Inquiry in Design Pedagogy and Design Thinking. Scopus, Denmark.
[19] Wrigley, C., et al. (2018). Design Thinking Education: A Comparison of Massive Open Online Courses. Scopus, Australia.
[20] Gachago, D., et al. (2017). Developing eLearning champions: a design thinking approach. Scopus, South Africa.
[21] Henriksen, D., et al. (2017). Design thinking: A creative approach to educational problems of practice. Scopus, USA.
[22] Çeviker-Çınar, G., et al. (2017). Design Thinking: A New Road Map In Business Education. Google Scholar, Turkey.
[23] Castellanos Escobar, O. & Rodríguez Díaz, E. (2016). The project management of design: contributions from communication, visual thinking and design thinking. Scopus, Colombia.
[24] Córdoba, E., et al. (2015). Fundamentals of design thinking. Dialnet, Colombia.
[25] Blizzard, J., et al. (2015). Using survey questions to identify and learn more about those who exhibit design thinking traits. Scopus, USA.
[26] Castillo-Vergara, M., et al. (2014). Design thinking: how to guide students, entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs in their application. Dialnet, Chile.
[27] Leinonen, T. & Durall, E. (2014). Design thinking and collaborative learning. Scopus, Finland.
[28] Laakso, M. & Clavert, M. (2014). To promote creativity and design thinking skills among university students. Dialnet, Finland.
Of the selected works, the 14.30%.se posted in Thinking Skills and Creativity with 4 posts, on 21.43.% in the magazines Kepes, Nurse Education Today and She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics and Innovation with 2 publications each and the rest (64.27%) in the various journals such as Academic Radiology, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, BMC Medical Education, Comunicar, Design Studies, Economics and Business, among others. However, beyond the specific journals, it is relevant to highlight the thematic areas in the reviewed studies. Most of the articles concentrate on topics related to education and educational technology, reflecting a significant interest in the use of the DT to innovate in higher education. In addition, studies in the field of humanities, social sciences, engineering and business were identified, which demonstrates the versatility of the DT as an active teaching methodology applied in various academic contexts. This thematic distribution highlights the impact of the DT in different disciplines, providing a more complete overview of its application in higher education.
3.1 Geographical distribution of publications
Regarding the country of origin, it was found that most of the publications come from China, representing 25% of the total articles. It is followed by the USA with 17.9%, Australia with 7.1%, Colombia with 10.7% and Spain and Finland, both with 7.1% each. Other countries represented in the study include Scotland, Norway, the Philippines, Peru, Denmark, South Africa, Turkey and Chile, each accounting for 3.6% of the reviewed publications. These data highlight the diversity of origin of the research, evidencing the global participation in the topic addressed.
The prominence of China in the number of published articles could be related to the remarkable growth of higher education and innovation in that country during the last decade. According to Villadiego Sánchez (n.d.), the significant increase in investment in educational and technological programs in the Asian country has promoted favorable environments for research, which could be boosting interest and academic production in active methodologies such as the DT.
On the other hand, the prominent presence of the United States and Australia may be linked to the tradition of research and development in higher education in these countries, as well as to the early adoption of innovative approaches in teaching (Ramírez Ramírez, 2020). Colombia, Spain and Finland, with a similar representation could reflect the global interest in exploring new methodologies to improve the quality and effectiveness of higher education (Mora Ramírez and Chacón, 2019; Vázquez-Cupeiro and López-Penedo, 2016).
The revised documents covered a publication period from 2014 to 2024. In methodological terms, it was found that 32.14% of the documents (n = 9) used a qualitative approach, while 25% (n = 7) corresponded to literature reviews. In addition, 17.86% (n = 5) used a quantitative approach, and there were 21.42% (n = 2 each) of documents that adopted a mixed and case study approach. Finally, one paper followed a comparative descriptive methodology. The diversity in the methodologies used is crucial to understand the different perspectives and approaches applied to DT in higher education. By presenting this methodological variety, it is highlighted how DT is investigated and applied from different angles, which allows to obtain a broader vision of the studied phenomenon. The methodological findings are presented in Table 1, which organizes and clarifies how DT has been addressed in the reviewed literature.
Table 1
Table 1. Objectives and methodology of the selected studies.
The studies retrieved refer mainly to a wide range of research focused on DT. These studies address crucial questions related to students’ perception and competence in DT, the adaptation and validation of tools to assess key components of DT, the effects of engaging learners in specific learning environments, the influence of DT on the improvement of team problem solving skills, among other relevant topics. In addition, there has been a growing interest in research on the implementation of design thinking in different academic disciplines, exploring how this methodology can be effectively applied and adapted to the specific needs of each subject area.
This diverse set of studies provides a comprehensive view of the DT as a teaching methodology in higher education, highlighting its applicability in different contexts and its potential to improve understanding, problem solving, originality and other fundamental skills in students. In addition, some studies have explored how design thinking can be effectively integrated into existing curricular programs, identifying strategies and good practices for its implementation in the educational field. Likewise, an emphasis has been observed on the evaluation of the impact of design thinking on the development of soft skills such as effective communication, teamwork and leadership, crucial aspects for the integral formation of university students.
Table 2 presents a detailed compilation of the most outstanding contributions of the selected articles, which represent a diversity of perspectives and approaches within the field of DT in higher education. The individual findings of each study are highlighted to offer a more precise and detailed view of how each research contributes to the understanding and application of DT in different educational contexts. This choice allows us to appreciate the richness of the contributions and how each article addresses specific aspects, from the development of competencies in DT to its impact on the students’ learning experience, promoting a comprehensive understanding of the topic.
Table 2
Table 2. Highlights of selected articles.
4 Discussion
The implementation of the DT in higher education has proven to be an effective tool for promoting creativity, innovation and the development of collaborative skills in different educational contexts. The analyzed studies reinforce the idea that the DT not only facilitates more active and participatory learning, but also improves educational quality by providing students and educators with tools to address problems creatively and effectively (González Granados, 2022; Laakso and Clavert, 2014).
Several studies have underlined the importance of the DT in specific educational contexts. For example, it has been observed that DT not only improves students’ creative confidence (Yi-Lin et al., 2023), but also offers an effective framework for the integration of empathy and user-centered approach in teaching (Deitte and Omary, 2019; Ní Shé et al., 2021). These findings are consistent with the literature that highlights the versatility of the DT as a pedagogical tool in a variety of disciplines.
The DT in Higher education underlines its potential as a transformative tool for teachers. It not only facilitates active and participatory learning, but also drives innovation in teaching and the creation of more collaborative and student-centered learning environments. For teachers, this means that integrating the DT into their practice can provide a structured framework for addressing pedagogical challenges, commenting on creativity, and tailoring their teaching methods to the specific needs of their students.
For example, in nursing education, the DT stands out as a clear example of how this methodology can enhance experimental and creative learning, resulting in meaningful experiences for students (Yao et al., 2024). Teachers in this field could consider the application of DT strategies to design activities that better integrate empathy and user-centered approaches, which in turn could enrich the educational experience.
In addition, the adaptation of the DT to different cultural and educational contexts has proven to be a challenge and an opportunity to optimize teaching practices (Hsing-Yuan, 2023b; Thi-Huyen et al., 2021). Teachers should be attentive to the different individual in the self-perceived competence of their students when necessary, as suggested in recent studies (Hsing-Yuan, 2023a). This approach can help create a more inclusive and equitable learning environment, where all students can develop their skills effectively.
In broader educational contexts, DT has been shown to be effective in creating a collaborative learning environment and in developing a problem-solving-oriented mindset. For example, the integration of the DT in inverted classrooms has been associated with an increase in students’ cooperation and creative mindset (Thi-Huyen et al., 2021). In addition, in the field of higher education, the DT has allowed teachers to develop new strategies to guide and transform the teaching process, resulting in a more dynamic and innovative educational environment (Magro Gutierrez and Carrascal Domínguez, 2019).
In terms of practical implications, these findings highlight the importance of integrating the DT into higher education curricula to not only improve students’ technical skills, but also to foster a mindset of innovation and creativity that is crucial in the modern world. Moderna the connection between DT and effective learning suggests that its application could be extended to more areas of study, beyond those already explored in this work.
Finally, the integration of the DT into higher education not only benefits students, but also offers teachers valuable tools to innovate in their pedagogical practice. The application of these principles in teaching can facilitate the creation of a more dynamic educational environment aligned with the demands of the XXI century, better preparing students to face future challenges.
5 Conclusion
The systematic search carried out in this study allowed an analysis of how design thinking has been successfully integrated into various educational contexts of higher education. The findings of this review highlight the effectiveness of design thinking to improve the learning experience of students by encouraging their active participation, critical thinking and interdisciplinary collaboration. In addition, it was evidenced how the application of the DT not only benefits students, but also transforms the pedagogical practices of educators, promoting innovation in the design of more effective and student-centered educational activities.
Through this review, it has been evidenced how the DT has been successfully applied to optimize the educational experience of the students, promoting active involvement, reflective analysis and problem solving in a collaborative way. In addition, its ability to adapt to different disciplines and educational environments has been highlighted, which underlines its versatility and potential to enrich the quality of higher education.
The findings have also highlighted the importance of integrating the DT into teacher education, providing educators with innovative tools to design more effective and learner-focused learning experiences. Likewise, an increase in the interest and commitment of students has been observed when applying approaches based on design thinking in their studies. This includes strategies for the creation of dynamic learning, the implementation of activities that encourage creativity and problem solving, and formative assessment to continuously improve the educational process.
As a recommendation, it is essential to continue promoting the research and implementation of the DT in university education. This involves developing training programs for educators, promoting interdisciplinary collaboration between faculties and departments, and fostering pedagogical innovation based on this methodological approach. In addition, it is suggested to continuously evaluate the impact of design thinking on students’ learning and development in order to adjust and improve its application in the university environment.
It is important to note that this study was limited by some aspects. Firstly, the search for studies was limited to sources available online and to works published in academic databases, which excluded research not available in these media. In addition, most of the studies reviewed focused on specific educational contexts, which may restrict the applicability of the results. These limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings and conclusions of this review. However, this study provides a valuable insight into the contributions and potential of design thinking in the transformation of educational processes at the university level.
Author contributions
LA: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2025.1462938/full#supplementary-material
References
Albay, E. M., and Eisma, D. V. (2021). Performance task assessment supported by the design thinking process: results from a true experimental research. Soc. Sci. Human. Open 3:100116. doi: 10.1016/j.ssaho.2021.100116
Arias Flores, H., Jadán Guerrero, J., and Gómez Luna, L. (2019). Innovación educativa en el aula mediante design thinking y game thinking. Hamut’ay 6, 82–95. doi: 10.21503/hamu.v6i1.1576
Barbosa-Quintero, G. M., and Estupiñán-Ortiz, B. L. (2023). La metodología activa Design Thinking para mejorar y transformar los procesos de enseñanza y aprendizaje. Ibero-Am. J. Educ. Soc. Res. 3, 74–82. doi: 10.56183/iberoeds.v3i1.600
Beaird, G., Geist, M., and Lewis, E. J. (2018). Design thinking: opportunities for application in nursing education. Nurse Educ. Today 64, 115–118. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2018.02.007
Bertão, R. A., Heeseok Jung, C., Chung, J., and Jaewoo, J. (2023). Design thinking: A customized blueprint to train R & D personnel in creative problem-solving. Think. Skills Creat. 48:101253. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101253
Blizzard, J., Klotz, L., Potvin, G., Hazari, Z., Cribbs, J., and Godwin, A. (2015). Using survey questions to identify and learn more about those who exhibit design thinking traits. Des. Stud. 38, 92–110. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2015.02.002
Cabana, S. R., Montero, J. J., and Aguilera, M. I. (2019). Modelación Multivariada de la Satisfacción de Usuarios de Salud Primaria como Influencia del Pensamiento de Diseño (Design Thinking). Información Tecnológica 30, 211–222. doi: 10.4067/S0718-07642019000600211
Calavia, M. B., Blanco, T., Casas, R., and Dieste, B. (2023). Making design thinking for education sustainable: training preservice teachers to address practice challenges. Think. Skills Creat. 47:101199. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101199
Campodónico Centurión, S., Campos Salgado, C., and Zavala Castillo, J. (2019). Rasgos de pensamiento de diseño de docentes inmersos en la economía naranja. Economía y Negocios 10, 82–93. doi: 10.29019/eyn.v10i2.621
Castellanos Escobar, A., and Rodríguez Díaz, F. N. (2016). La gestión proyectual del diseño: aportes desde la comunicación el pensamiento visual y el pensamiento de diseño. Kepes 13, 141–176. doi: 10.17151/10.17151/kepes.2016.13.14.7
Castillo-Vergara, M., Álvarez-Marín, A., and Cabana-Villca, R. (2014). Design thinking: como guiar a estudiantes, emprendedores y empresarios en su aplicación. Ingeniería Industrial 35, 301–311.
Çeviker-Çınar, G., Mura, G., and Demirbağ-Kaplan, M. (2017). Design thinking: A new road map in business education. Des. J. 20, S977–S987. doi: 10.1080/14606925.2017.1353042
Córdoba, C., Arteaga, J., and Bonilla, H. (2015). Fundamentos del pensamiento en diseño. Revista Investigium IRE Ciencias Sociales Y Humanas 6, 38–50.
Deitte, L. A., and Omary, R. A. (2019). The power of design thinking in medical education. Acad. Radiol. 26, 1417–1420. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2019.02.012
Del Moral Pérez, M. E., Villalustre Martínez, L., Neira Piñeiro, M., and Del, R. (2018). Percepción docente del desarrollo emocional y creativo de los escolares derivado del diseño colaborativo de digital storytelling. Educación XX1 1, 345–374.
Ejsing-Duun, S., and Skovbjerg, H. M. (2019). Design as a mode of inquiry in design pedagogy and design thinking. Int. J. Art Design Educ. 38, 445–460. doi: 10.1111/jade.12214
Gachago, D., Morkel, J., Hitge, L., van Zyl, I., and Ivala, E. (2017). Developing eLearning champions: a design thinking approach. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 14, 1–14. doi: 10.1186/s41239-017-0068-8
González Granados, J. E. (2022). Pensamiento de diseño como agente de transformación en los procesos formativos. Kepes 19, 633–672. doi: 10.17151/kepes.2022.19.26.20
González-González, C. S. (2015). Estrategias para trabajar la creatividad en la Educación Superior: pensamiento de diseño, aprendizaje basado en juegos y en proyectos. Revista de Educación a Distancia (RED), (40). Available online at: https://revistas.um.es/red/article/view/234291
Gregorio-Chaviano, O., Repiso, R., Calderón-Rehecho, A., León-Marín, J., and Jiménez-Contreras, E. (2021). Dialnet Métricas como herramienta de evaluación bibliométrica: aportes al análisis de la actividad científica en Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades. El profesional de la información 30. doi: 10.3145/epi.2021.may.18
Henriksen, D., Richardson, C., and Mehta, R. (2017). Design thinking: A creative approach to educational problems of practice. Think. Skills Creat. 26, 140–153. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2017.10.001
Hsing-Yuan, L. (2023a). Design thinking competence as self-perceived by nursing students in Taiwan: A cross-sectional study. Nurse Educ. Today 121:105696. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105696
Hsing-Yuan, L. (2023b). Measuring design thinking competence in Taiwanese nursing students: a cross-cultural instrument adaptation. BMC Med. Educ. 23:927. doi: 10.1186/s12909-023-04911-z
Jamal, T., Kircher, J., and Donaldson, J. P. (2021). Re-visiting design thinking for learning and practice: critical pedagogy, Conative Empathy. Sustainability 13:964. doi: 10.3390/su13020964
Krüger, M., and Cejas Sainz, M. V. (2022). ¿Design Thinking para las escuelas de formación profesional? Descubriendo un enfoque innovador mediante su prueba en la formación del profesorado. Educare et Comunicare Revista De investigación De La Facultad De Humanidades 10, 20–27. doi: 10.35383/educare.v10i1.709
Laakso, M., and Clavert, M. (2014). Promover la creatividad y las habilidades del pensamiento de diseño entre los estudiantes universitarios. Revista de Estudios de Juventud, 104. Available online at: https://www.injuve.es/sites/default/files/Documentos%2014%20Promover%20la%20creatividad%20y%20las%20habilidades%20del%20pensamiento.DTf
Laferriere, R., Engeler, B., and Rixon, A. (2019). Addressing cognitive challenges in applying design thinking for opportunity discovery: reflections from a design thinking team. She Ji J. Design Econ. Innov. 5, 383–386. doi: 10.1016/j.sheji.2019.11.012
Lara Carabi, A. N., Gavilanes Miuños, H. R., Cedeño Bermeo, J. E., and Freire Morán, N. D. (2023). Aplicación de la metodología design thinking mediante el uso de recursos tecnológicos en la educación superior. Pro Sci. 7, 226–235. doi: 10.29018/issn.2588-1000vol7iss49.2023
Latorre-Cosculluela, C., Vázquez-Toledo, S., Rodríguez-Martínez, A., and Liesa-Orús, M. (2020). Design Thinking: creatividad y pensamiento crítico en la universidad. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa 22, 1–13. doi: 10.24320/redie.2020.22.e28.2917
Leinonen, T., and Durall, E. (2014). Pensamiento de diseño y aprendizaje colaborativo. Comunicar 21, 107–116. doi: 10.3916/C42-2014-10
Lynch, M., Kamovich, U., Longva, K. K., and Steinert, M. (2021). Combining technology and entrepreneurial education through design thinking: students’ reflections on the learning process. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 164:119689. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.06.015
Magro Gutierrez, M., and Carrascal Domínguez, S. (2019). El Design Thinking como recurso y metodología para la alfabetización visual y el aprendizaje en preescolares de escuelas multigrado de México. Vivat Academia. Revista de Comunicación 146, 71–95. doi: 10.15178/va.2019.146.71-95
Meng-Fang, T. (2021). Exploration of students’ integrative skills developed in the design thinking of a psychology course. Think. Skills Creat. 41:100893. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100893
Mora Ramírez, A. J., and Chacón, S. (2019). Ecosistema de innovación educativa, Ecolab, Laboratorio y procesos de formación diferencial. Panorama 13, 50–72.
Moreira-Cedeño, J. A., Zambrano-Montes, L. C., and Rodríguez-Gámez, M. (2021). El modelo Design thinking como estrategia pedagógica en la enseñanza-aprendizaje en la educación superior. Polo del Conocimiento: Revista científico – profesional 6, 1062–1074. Available online at: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=7926866
Mosely, G., Wright, N., and Weigley, C. (2018). Faciliting design thinking: A comparison of design expertise. Think. Skills Creat. 27, 177–189. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2018.02.004
Ní Shé, C., Farrell, O., Brunton, J., and Costello, E. (2021). Integrating design thinking into instructional design: the #OpenTeach case study. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 38, 33–52. doi: 10.14742/ajet.6667
Oliveros Niebles, A. P., Velásquez, S. M., Hurtado, M. P.Del, and Pérez Córdoba, J. (2016). Reflexiones sobre el impacto del pensamiento de diseño en procesos de formación e investigación en diseño. Iconofacto, 12, 26–41. doi: 10.18566/v12n18.a02
Page, M., McKenzie, J., Bossuyt, P., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T., Mulrow, C., et al. (2021). Declaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas. Rev. Esp. Cardiol. 74, 790–799. doi: 10.1016/j.recesp.2021.06.016
Ramírez Ramírez, L. N. (2020). Tendencias de la innovación educativa en los contextos sociales. Análisis del mapeo de literatura. Revista educación 44, 1–18.
Scopus (2017). Scopus Funcionalidades avanzadas en Scopus. Available online at: https://www.recursoscientificos.fecyt.es/sites/default/files/scopus_avanzado_noviembre_16_.DTf
Shiyu, L., and Chengfeng, L. (2023). Promoting design thinking and creativity by making: A quasi-experiment in the information technology course. Think. Skills Creat. 49:101335. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101335
Thi-Huyen, N., Xuan-Lam, P., and Thanh, T. (2021). The impact of design thinking on problem solving and teamwork mindset in A flipped classroom. Eurasian. J. Educ. Res. 21. doi: 10.14689/ejer.2021.96.3
Torres-Salinas, D., Ruiz-Pérez, R., and Delgado-López-Cózar, E. (2009). Google Scholar como herramienta para la evaluación científica. Profesional de la información 18, 501–510. doi: 10.3145/epi.2009.sep.03
Urrútia, G., and Bonfill, X. (2010). Declaración PRISMA: una propuesta para mejorar la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas y metaanálisis. Med. Clin. 135, 507–511. doi: 10.1016/j.medcli.2010.01.015
Vargas Márquez, B. L., Inga Hanampa, L. A., and Maldonado Portilla, M. G. (2021). Design Thinking aplicado al Diseño de Experiencia de Usuario. Innovación y Software 2, 6–19. doi: 10.48168/innosoft.s5.a35
Vázquez-Cupeiro, S., and López-Penedo, S. (2016). Escuela, TIC e innovación educativa. Digital Educ. Rev. 30, 248–261.
Villadiego Sánchez, L. I. Los fundamentos para un nuevo paradigma “La Educación hacia la diferencia”. Societas. Revista de Ciencias Sociales y Humanísticas 22, 17–31.
Wrigley, C., Genevieve, M., and Tomitsch, M. (2018). Design thinking education: A comparison of massive open online courses. She Ji J. Design Econ. Innov. 4, 275–292. doi: 10.1016/j.sheji.2018.06.002
Yao, Y., Long, A., Tseng, Y. S., Chiang, C.-Y., and Sun, F.-K. (2024). Undergraduate nursing students’ learning experiences using design thinking on a human development course: A phenomenological study. Nurse Educ. Pract. 75:103886. doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2024.103886
Keywords: design thinking, teaching methodology, higher education, educational innovation, student participation design thinking
Citation: Alvarado LF (2025) Design thinking as an active teaching methodology in higher education: a systematic review. Front. Educ. 10:1462938. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1462938
Edited by:
K. Thiyagu, Central University of Kerala, IndiaReviewed by:
Janika Leoste, Tallinn University, EstoniaStacy Grau, Texas Christian University, United States
Copyright © 2025 Alvarado. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Luis Felipe Alvarado, bHVpcy5hbHZhcmFkb3plZ2FycmFAZXBnLnVzaWwucGU=