Over the past two decades, design thinking has become a hype term in many fields across the globe. One advocate of design thinking, Tim Brown, author of Change by Design, defines it as “a discipline that uses the designer’s sensibility and methods to match people’s needs with what is technologically feasible and what a viable business strategy can convert into customer value and market opportunity” (86). In the context of higher education, design thinking has been valued mainly for its potential in three aspects: first, business educators advocate that by integrating design thinking, business students can acquire skills and mindsets beyond the rational-analytical model and can be guided in a project-based exploratory process that emphasizes iteration, prototyping and user-needs (Glen et al.); second, designer and design educators believe designers should expand their territory to achieve bigger goals as they “are entrusted with increasingly complex and impactful challenges” (Meyer and Norman 13);third, some scholars have noted the importance of incorporating design thinking or design-related courses into general education (Cross) and liberal arts education (Nesteruk and Martin).

In conjunction with these discussions, it is imperative to explore the role of design thinking in day-to-day teaching practices. I will share my reflective teaching practices and pedagogical adjustments guided by the question: “How can I teach design thinking so that it is relevant and meaningful to students in and beyond the classroom?” My focus will be reflecting on attempts to document, share and curate students’ work in relation to design cases. The examples shared below are mostly from the course called “Design Thinking”, which I teach at my current institution. This institution, established in 2012, is the first Sino-US research university in China. It has a total of around 1300 undergraduate students, of whom half are local Chinese students and half are international students from more than 70 countries.

While the specific case is connected with my own teaching, I believe the perspectives and approaches I take have wider implications both for course design in relation to “design thinking” and for teaching practices that aim to create an inclusive learning environment.

Pedagogical Standpoint and the Design Thinking Course

To a great degree, design thinking embraces and celebrates the concept of “learning by doing” and aligns with the concept of active learning (Faust and Paulson). Across all stages of design thinking, learners will be involved in tasks and challenges that require them to think critically and creatively, observe and identify problems, formulate and revise design solutions, and make and test their ideas. While the lesson plan may vary, most teaching and training around design thinking follows frameworks developed from the Double Diamond diagram created by the Design Council in the UK (shared in Figure 1 below).

An example of another commonly applied diagram, shared in Figure 2, illustrates the six main stages of design thinking: “empathise, define, ideate, prototype, test, and implement”. To offer an example, instructors can challenge students to design a better cafe experience for families. Students will then be guided through these stages by:

1. Going to cafes to observe family consumers (empathise),

2. Learning about the challenges family consumers face and narrowing down the specific problem they hope to address, such as limitation of menu choices for different age groups (define),

3. Brainstorming possible solutions through group discussions and exercises (ideate),

4. Creating a design example to illustrate the solution (e.g. a new menu, an adjusted seating plan, an activity area for children) (prototype),

5. Testing how it works by gaining feedback from potential users as these solutions are simulated or implemented (test), and

6. Revising and polishing the original prototype before delivering the final solution (implement).

Throughout the years, I have found it imperative to guide students to apply this framework more critically. This framework is helpful as it offers people with no design background a conceptual structure to break down the process into “problem” phase and “solution” phase, and many creators of the adjusted diagram have pointed out that one should not treat the process as a linear one (for example, when one is working with the solution one might also need to revisit the define and develop stage). As an instructor of design thinking, I have also made many experiments as I was trying to translate the critiques of design thinking into my course design. In relation to the focus of this article, I want to highlight two main streams of critiques and suggestions. Firstly, designers or design thinkers should constantly immerse themselves in critical evaluation (Jen) and reflective practices (Kochanowska and Gagliardi); secondly, design is itself “a situated, contingent set of practices” (Kimbell 287) and designers own life experiences, cultural backgrounds and design principles (Sanders) will inform their practices.

In addition to the intention of guiding students in a design thinking process with the Double Diamond framework in a more critical manner, I was reflecting on the advantages and challenges of engaging a diverse student body. The term “diverse” refers to students’ cultural background, disciplines and years in college, as the “Design Thinking” course I currently teach is offered as an elective course and students from all years and all majors can select the course (a 4-credit course spanning across 14 weeks, meeting 3 hours per week). This means I need to be able to motivate students from all disciplinary backgrounds to engage in design related activities that require different skill sets. When I put myself into my students’ shoes, I could see myself asking the questions, “Why should I take this course? Why should I learn design thinking? How is this related to my major and to my life?” As an educator, I believe that we need to relate our teaching to students’ day-to-day lives so that they can find meaning throughout their learning and develop and sustain their motivation. This belief became stronger as I started to teach design thinking, which is promoted and branded as a user-centred approach to develop and deliver innovative ideas.

In my teaching, I integrate situated learning theory (Lave and Wenger), acknowledging that learning happens when individual learners are situated in their role as a member of the learning community. Social interaction (Bandura) and collaboration embedded in an authentic context are critical elements of meaningful situated learning. Aligned with this theoretical framework, I view teaching and learning as a process of co-creation (Resnick). I care deeply about students’ growth and how they can learn better by interacting with their peers and other professionals.

Over the years, I have come to realize that encouraging active learning and incorporating students’ input into my teaching have the potential to enrich the design examples and cases commonly shared by design educators and professionals.

Collecting and Sharing Design Cases in Class: Learning from Real Life Experiences

Learning from existing design practices is a key component in my teaching of design thinking, as it allows connections between the design thinking framework and real-life examples. I use “design examples” to refer to casual references to an example to illustrate existing designs, and the term “design case” is adopted to emphasize that the chosen content is intentionally in relation to other teaching materials for discussion and critical analysis.

Growing Numbers of Design Cases

My journey of teaching design thinking began at a Chinese university, where I taught a large class with over 100 students. Like other members of the teaching team, I faced the challenge of balancing lecturing, small group coaching, and active learning components. During that time, I developed an activity called “Good or Bad Design.” In this activity, I presented a design case (often through a short YouTube video) and asked each student to vote on whether they considered it to be a good or bad design. This was followed by a discussion session, which combined group discussions, voluntary sharing, and my own summative comments.

When I transitioned to my current institution, where I teach small classes to a multi-cultural student group, I adjusted this activity into a discussion format. I observed that the framing of “good or bad” often confined students to an argument style that focuses solely on debate and students seldom related their answers to the course content . With the new design, I present a number of guided questions—related to specific perspectives, methods, and approaches in the course materials—to students so they can engage with the video (or read relevant materials) with these questions in mind. For example, I would play the video of “Lunar New Year Phone-Less Table – by Ikea” and facilitate a discussion on the ultimate user needs this design aims to address. When I introduce “The Dancing Traffic Light Manikin by smart” as another example, I would also design discussion prompts to inspire students to think about how to change people’s behaviour through design, to widen their ideas on what could be their design features and principles, and to think about the cultural context in relation to design. This encourages students to broaden their ideas regarding design features and principles and to consider the cultural context in relation to design.

As my lesson plan evolves, my collection of design cases expands. I have aimed to include design cases from diverse cultural backgrounds in my selection, so that students can learn from relatable examples and develop their cross-cultural competence.

In the early years of my teaching career, I began to incorporate class activities and assignments that required students to present their own design examples. These in-class exercises were designed to prompt students to reflect on designs they encounter in their daily lives. For example, one activity I frequently introduce in the first two sessions is titled “Terrible Design”. I ask each student to think about one terrible design they have encountered or experienced and share it in pairs. Later in the course, I encourage students to revisit this example and consider how they might “save” the design by applying design thinking tools and strategies we have covered in class. Unfortunately, these examples are often left aside when the course ends.

In comparison, a more thoroughly documented exercise is related to a reading assignment where students are required to read an excerpt from Chapter 1 of Don Norman’s The Design of Everyday Things and respond to five questions. In one question, I ask students to discuss one of their favourite designs and connect it to the seven stages of action introduced by the Norman.

The Digital Turn

I encountered the greatest challenge of my teaching career in 2020 when I was compelled to rapidly migrate my “Design Thinking” course online due to the pandemic. This transition pushed me to come up with new tools for students to share and discuss their design examples. This turned out to be a great opportunity for collective discussion as each student could now view and learn from the examples shared by their peers.

In preparing for this online-only learning environment, I explored a number of digital tools, including Flipgrid for video uploads, Wakelet for curating content (including images, texts, and links), Mural for collaborative whiteboarding. Surprisingly, this shift led to a significant improvement in the quality of student work. Through the use of these digital platforms, students gained access to their peers’ projects, providing inspiration and motivation. My observations and feedback from students highlighted that the right digital tool not only fosters peer engagement but also enhances accountability and contribution quality. Online submissions, when effectively facilitated, can create a digital footprint in a well-curated format accessible to the entire learning community. Furthermore, discussion sessions became more effective as students could reference their documented contributions before elaborating on them in detail.

The primary challenge I encountered was that both the students and I found it time consuming to manage different digital platforms, some of which require log-ins. With a few more rounds of testing and experiments, I settled on similar products within Google Workspace (formerly G Suite), which is a more frequently used platform at my institution and is automatically linked to students’ university email accounts.

The image illustrates how students used Jamboard—one of the Google Workspace products that functions as a collaborative whiteboard—for sharing their in-class responses. When multiple users were working on the same board, it could be challenging, as one can move or alter existing post-it notes. To mitigate these issues, I developed four guidelines, termed the “Jamboard Code of Conduct,” which I introduce to students during the first session of the course:

• Be Relevant: Please only post contents that are relevant to this course.

• Be Polite and Respectful: Do not change or delete anything that your peers have created.

• Be Protective: Please do not share our course Jamboards to anyone else.

• Be Creative: Create your own original answers and do not paraphrase other answers.

Compared to other digital collaborative whiteboards, Jamboard closely simulates the experience of using a physical whiteboard. Despite its less-organized appearance, students appreciate the freedom it offers, including the ability to upload images/photos and select their preferred post-it note colours when adding their comments.

The Value of Student Submitted Work

On most occasions, the examples submitted by students can only be categorized as ‘design examples’, though the significance and role of these examples vary according to the exercise format and their connection to the course materials. Over time, the value of these submissions becomes apparent. Students often experience less pressure and exhibit a more lighthearted approach when commenting on and discussing cases shared by their peers, which, in most instances, are more pertinent to their real-life experiences. I have also noticed that I began to share some of these documented examples provided by past students with the current group of students I teach. Students often relate well to the examples provided by course alumni.

Another advantage of documenting and sharing aligns with my teaching philosophy, which responds to students’ multicultural backgrounds and aims to develop their critical thinking and multicultural competence. In the context of design thinking, I aspire to inspire and encourage students to consider the potential consequences of learning exclusively from design cases featured on mainstream sources, such as the IDEO Design Kit and Stanford d.school. Although I have endeavoured to collect design cases from diverse regions and cultural backgrounds, the range of examples provided by student groups surpasses my collection.

In an earlier co-authored article (Yuan and Wu), I analyzed design cases featured in MOOC courses (presented in Chinese and shared as open-access learning resources) and observed a disparity in the representation of design examples from local Chinese contexts versus non-Chinese contexts. Although this analysis constitutes only a case study of existing MOOC courses in Chinese, the concept of “canon” proves invaluable for instructors. Jane Barnes Mack, referencing Roger Kimball, discusses the relevance of the modern definition of “canon” in education. A canon can be perceived as an “unofficial, shifting, yet generally recognized body of great works that have withstood the test of time and are acknowledged as central to a complete education.” Similarly, Harry Levin remarks that canon “has signified a norm, a paradigm, a set of models, and can be collectively accepted to constitute the authorized body of knowledge” (354).

When the contributions of students' design examples are valued beyond mere responses during in-class exercises or assignments, I, as the instructor, can facilitate their transformation into design cases. This process not only enriches and diversifies the existing canon but also incorporates new cases.

Curating Design Examples

While acknowledging the importance of students’ contributions is a significant step and serves as a strong motivation for documentation and sharing, the varied formats of these submissions present challenges in disseminating their work beyond the course. For instance, students often share photos of designs they are using or have interacted with as part of their in-class responses or assignments. In a recent class, we conducted a modified “Terrible Design” exercise in the first session, where students explored their surroundings for ten minutes to photograph poorly designed objects they encountered.1 These photos were shared in a WeChat group as immediate responses, followed by discussions and comments on the problems observed.

I am currently developing an all-in-one platform to more effectively curate and co-curate materials from students and plan to open this repository to the public. This initiative aims to facilitate access to design examples and allow individuals to contribute their own, thereby enhancing the ease with which resources can be shared or found. Furthermore, this platform seeks to extend the learning community beyond the current student body.

Although the site is still in development, I intend to share a prototype to convey the concept. The website will be an online platform governed by a Creative Commons license, designed to promote “design, redesign, and codesign.” It will offer users the option to “submit” or “view” content, with an emphasis on the submission process to encourage contributions of design examples by highlighting the “submit” button.

Before submitting, I request that users specify whether their contribution pertains to their own life experiences or to a design they have encountered indirectly, such as a product discovered online or a service utilized by friends or family. For both categories, users are asked to tag their submission and provide a brief explanation of their reasons for sharing it.

After choosing the type of design example, users have the option to upload one to four photographs for each design. They are encouraged to categorize their submissions by selecting from pre-existing tags or creating new ones. Additionally, users are prompted to document the date and time of their photo or design encounter and to compose a brief description, with a recommended length of between 50 and 200 words.

For the view mode, the plan is to implement a gallery format that displays all submitted design examples, enabling users to conduct searches or apply filters based on tags. In the beta version of the website, two primary categories of tags will be introduced. The first category aligns with the four orders of design as identified by the esteemed design philosopher Richard Buchanan, “symbolic and visual communications; material objects; activities and organized services; complex systems or environments for living, working, playing, and learning.” The second category pertains to the cultural or regional context of the design, focusing on the designer or design team and the targeted user group.

In addition to submission and browsing functionalities, the platform will feature a section for users to engage in discussions about the design examples, focusing on the strengths of the designs and areas for improvement.

In addition to the time required for development, I have contemplated several challenges associated with enhancing the platform's user-friendliness and motivating contributions of design examples. Developing clear guidelines and contemplating the submission procedures are essential steps. I anticipate the necessity for a degree of editorial oversight to maintain the quality and relevance of submissions. Consequently, I envisage framing this initiative as a research project, which would enable the employment of a research assistant to oversee the site's management and review submissions prior to their publication on the open-access platform.

Another aspect requiring examination is the tagging process, particularly the feasibility of combining pre-defined tags established by myself and the student groups with those selected by users. This hybrid tagging strategy necessitates testing to ensure its effectiveness and user engagement.

Furthermore, integrating this website with my teaching practice demands careful consideration to uphold my ethical teaching standards. Proposing an optional exercise that allows students to upload their design examples—already submitted for class exercises or coursework—following the receipt of their assignment grades may offer a seamless integration without compromising the integrity of the educational process.

Conclusion

Why and how teachers can and should elicit students’ work as active learning practices has been addressed in many pedagogy-related studies and examples, but the equally important question we need to ask is “what next”? When students’ work can have the potential to go beyond the short existent time and the small circle audience (that is usually the instructor and the peers who are enrolled in the same course), we as educators have the responsibility and opportunity to work with students to make these resources both meaningful and engaging beyond the classroom.

What I shared in this article is only a personal attempt that emerged based on my teaching experience (pushed and accelerated by the digital shift during the pandemic). With new digital tools, we could have more experiments and explorations on how we can document, curate and share student work, so that it could be references and resources for existing student communities, for future students, and for anyone who is interested in the topic.

Works Cited

Bandura, Albert. Social Learning Theory. Prentice Hall Publishers, 1977.

Brown, Tim. Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. Harper Business, 2009.

Buchanan, Richard. “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking.” Design Issues, vol. 8, no. 2, 1992, pp. 5–21.

Cross, A. “Design and General Education.” Design Studies, vol. 1, no. 4, 1980, pp. 202–206.

Design Council UK. “The Double Diamond.” Design Council, https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-resources/the-double-diamond/. Accessed 29 Feb. 2024.

Faust, Jennifer L., and Donald R. Paulson. “Active Learning in the College Classroom.” Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, vol. 9, no. 2, 1998, pp. 3–24.

Glen, Roy, et al.. “The Need for Design Thinking in Business Schools.” Academy of Management Learning & Education, vol. 13, no. 4, 2014, pp. 653–667. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43696653.

Jen, Natasha. “Design Thinking is Bullshit.” 99U Conference, 2017, New York.

Kimball, Roger. Tenured Radicals. Harper & Row, 1991.

Kimbell, Lucy. “Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I.” Design and Culture, vol. 3, no. 3, 2015, pp. 285–306.

Kochanowska, M., and W.R. Gagliardi. “The Double Diamond Model: In Pursuit of Simplicity and Flexibility.” Perspectives on Design II, edited by D. Raposo, J. Neves, and J. Silva, Springer Series in Design and Innovation, vol. 16, Springer, Cham, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79879-6_2.

Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger. Situated Learning Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Levin, Harry. “Core, Canon, Curriculum.” College English, vol. 43, no. 4, 1981, pp. 352–362.

Mack, Jane Barnes. “The Role of the Canon in Western Education”. Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Studies, vol. 26, no.1, 1994, pp. 7-16, https://www.jstor.org/stable/43294350.

Meyer, M.W., and D. Norman. “Changing Design Education For the 21st Century.” She Ji, vol. 6, no. 1, 2019, pp. 13–49.

Nesteruk, J., and J.W. Martin. “A Liberal Arts Approach to Design Thinking.” Inside Higher Ed, 2019, https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2019/09/26/how-design-thinking-can-advance-liberal-arts-and-vice-versa-opinion

Norman, Donald A. The Design of Everyday Things. MIT Press, 2013.

Resnick, M. Lifelong Kindergarten: Cultivating Creativity through Projects, Passion, Peers, and Play. MIT Press, 2018.

Sanders, Liz. “An Evolving Map of Design Practice and Design Research.” Interactions, vol. 15, no. 6, 2008, pp. 13–17.

Yuan, Yanyue. and Wu Guangyu. “Problems and Potentials of Teaching Design Thinking as Online courses in the Chinese context.” SN Social Sciences, vol. 1, no. 6, 2021, pp. 1–27, https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-021-00148-z.