Cultivating Design Thinking in Higher Education: A Systematic Review of Pedagogical Approaches

Abstract

This systematic literature review (SLR) aims to find out how Design Thinking (DT) is developed in higher educational settings and what pedagogical methods and scaffolding ways have been implemented, as well as identify current academic debates and research lacunae. According to the PRISMA guidelines, there were 27 high-quality eligible empirical studies from the WOS, Scopus and ERIC in 2021–2025. Based on deep analysis the data suggests a major shift in how DT is being taught. What we found is that educators are moving away from simple, rigid models like the Stanford five-stage model toward more complex learning ecosystems. These paradigms are in the form of digital shifts using online whiteboards, learning by doing through maker practice and interdisciplinary integration among various faculties. The most successful programmes use a mix of scaffolds, such as microtools to shape cognitive habits; visual trails to track thinking trajectories; and gamified simulators that force students to physically experience user pain points. However, our look at the evidence also reveals some serious challenges. Most current DT assessment frameworks fail to capture real growth because they lack ecological validity and lean too heavily on student self-reports, which creates a significant gap in measuring implicit skills like empathy or resilience. Further, it has yet to be tested empirically that critical thinking is a prerequisite of DT. Instead, students often experience uncertainty anxiety when the messy reality of DT conflicts with their structured school days. The study suggests that breaking away from innovation theatre demands that schools cultivate blended learning ecosystems and develop benchmarking based on actual performance. Finally, the way we teach should evolve from step-by-step instruction to the pushing of students toward real-world pressures through hands-on making and the complicated social-ethical tensions found among diverse stakeholders.