Mapping the Landscape of Design-Based Learning in Higher Education

• In Event: Design-Based Approaches for Creativity Education and Research: Case Studies From Six Universities in Canada and Australia

Abstract

Objectives/Purpose:
The paper presents findings from a qualitative study that show that students learn different types of design in various educational sites. The study suggests that although design thinking is a commonly published form of design-based learning, students outside of design programs are benefitting from other types of learning through design. The paper thus argues that by understanding the differences between various types of design-based learning, we can further theorize it as a rigorous educational approach that cultivates creative growth rather than a passing educational trend.

Theoretical framework:
Publications on design across higher education concentrate on design thinking. In comparison, K-12 studies reveal numerous forms of learning through design beyond design thinking, possibly because schoolteachers saw its educational value before design thinking became popular (see Davis, 1998; 1999a; 1999b; 2004; 2017). From these studies we learn that design-based learning encompasses several theories, such as experiential and arts-based learning. It also includes distinctive traits associated with learning design problem solving, such as visual and hands-on learning (O'Donoghue & Berard, 2014; Stables, 2017; Vande Zande, 2007b, 2010b, 2016). K-12 studies also show us that educators integrate design in various ways to teach different knowledge, some related and some not, to design. Examining studies in schools not only highlights its characteristics and applications as an educational approach, but also gives us a probable explanation of the rise of design thinking in higher education over the past decades.

Methods and data:
The research is a qualitative interview study of students' experiences of learning design. Methods include semi-structured interviews for data collection (Brenner, 2006; Jones et al., 2014; Josselson, 2013), constant comparison analysis (Butler-Kisber, 2010), and visual mapping as methods for inquiry and representations (Butler & Poldma, 2010; Ligita et al., 2020; Mitchell, 2011). The interviews included 15 research participants/students from six programs. Participants were enrolled in undergraduate programs with one graduate student. Students ranged from the first year to fifth years. Most were full-time students, juggling studying with part-time jobs and other family obligations.

Results and significance:
Most studies encourage educators to teach design problem-solving, considering it the most valuable learning that students can borrow from designers. However, the research shows that students appreciate learning technical design skills with practical applications, not only conceptual problem-solving strategies. Students also see value in design lessons for growth in multiple areas of their lives, not just professionally. The study also indicates that students' interest in design thinking is because they feel they can apply it in different contexts, not necessarily because it leads to technological innovation. Moreover, graphic design courses are popular among non-design students, contrasting the concentration on design thinking in academic publications. The study expands the landscape of design-based learning in higher education by showing us that students across programs learn different types of design. Findings thus reveal that design-based learning has diverse applications similar to K-12, extending its landscape in higher education beyond design thinking.

Author

• Layal Shuman, Toronto Metropolitan University