Using design thinking for interdisciplinary curriculum design and teaching: a case study in higher education

The study responds to post-COVID higher education challenges by exploring how to cultivate graduates able to address complex societal problems through interdisciplinary learning. It investigates how a university instructor uses design thinking to design and teach an interdisciplinary course, what challenges arise in implementation (e.g., integrating diverse disciplinary perspectives, communication barriers, resource and time constraints), and what strategies and reflections support effective practice. The purpose is to evaluate design thinking as a methodology for interdisciplinary curriculum design and teaching, and to derive practical insights to improve interdisciplinary education in Taiwan and beyond.

The review outlines interdisciplinary teaching models and inquiry-based approaches. Traditional models include problem-based learning (PBL) and project-based learning (PjBL), differing in problem structure and outcomes. Interdisciplinary project-based learning (IPBL) emphasizes teamwork across disciplines to build creativity, communication, problem-solving, and engagement. Given growing complexity of real-world challenges, design-based learning (DBL) has emerged, integrating design thinking (DT) and prototyping to support human-centered, iterative problem solving and higher-order thinking. DT is defined as an iterative, human-centered approach aligning user needs with feasibility and viability. The review also addresses challenges in interdisciplinary curricula: limited instructor training in interdisciplinary methods, communication barriers across disciplines, difficulty teaching interdisciplinary skills in classrooms, time and resource constraints for students, and team dynamics issues. It stresses the need for instructor scaffolding to develop both hard and soft skills, experiential activities (observation, interviews), and close collaboration among instructors from different fields.

Design: Qualitative case study of an interdisciplinary program course at a university in southern Taiwan. Period: September–December 2022 (one semester; typical class time 3 hours/week). Participants: One instructor (assistant professor with expertise in cultural/material anthropology, globalization/localization, design/applied anthropology, and design thinking), one teaching assistant, and 38 students. Ethical approval obtained (NCKU HREC-E-110-637-2); informed consent collected. Course context: Transdisciplinary, real-world focus on designing creative play equipment for children. Learning objectives: DT fundamentals, maker skills, and mid/final projects. Midterm: design DT-informed games for children using cardboard; Final: design and exhibit innovative wooden playground equipment in the community (two-day exhibition) in collaboration with Taiwan Parks & Playgrounds for Children by Children. Data collection: Weekly classroom observations (R1 and R2) across the semester; three interviews with the instructor; student interviews (one per group recommended by instructor); document analysis (course artifacts). Semi-structured interview outlines targeted course design, teaching strategies, challenges, and student experiences. Observations included field notes, photos, and incidental interactions. Research team: R1 (faculty in education; primary interviewer; 3 years interdisciplinary teaching experience) and R2 (master’s student; co-observer/interviewer). Member checks conducted; peer review applied. Analysis: Audio recorded, transcribed verbatim; anonymized coding with NVivo 12. Triangulation across interviews, observations, and documents to enhance validity. Coding schema: open coding (83 initial codes) across 27 files (3 instructor interviews, 6 student interviews, 9 researcher observations, 9 co-observer observations), followed by axial coding to 12 main codes. Data analysis conducted Feb 2023; saturation determined when patterns stabilized.

- Design thinking as effective methodology: Applying the Stanford d.school 5-stage DT model (empathize, define, ideate, prototype, test) across three full cycles (mini-workshop, midterm, final) effectively structured interdisciplinary learning and aligned classroom tasks to real-world application. - Practice-application integration: Emphasis on prototyping, user testing (with elementary school children), and a public exhibition fostered collaboration, iteration, and deeper understanding beyond proposal-only work. - Teaching strategies: Creating equitable instructor-student culture (first-name/coach), scaffolding through purposeful questioning (what/why/how), scenario simulation, and structured feedback. Visual tools (personas, POV, journey maps, sticky-note feedback, wall displays) and vertical communication improved cross-disciplinary dialog. Dot voting supported consensus-building. - Experiential learning: On-site observations of children’s play, co-design activities (dream backpacks), and progressive POV exercises improved empathy, insight generation, and problem definition quality. - Prototyping guidance: Low- to high-fidelity progression, geometric constraints (basic shapes, limited colors) to focus on form/function; expert input (professional carpenter) improved structural feasibility and safety in wooden equipment prototypes. - Instructor role: Guided autonomy—offering direction and strategies while preserving student ownership; intervening to maintain task alignment when projects drifted (e.g., from equipment toward game design). - Challenges identified: Limited technical skill instruction time (e.g., woodworking), resource and funding demands (materials, equipment, expert fees, venues), time constraints within a 16-week, 3 h/week format, students’ competing academic and work commitments, team formation across disciplines not always feasible, and occasional imbalance between breadth of activities and depth of specific skills (e.g., interviewing children). - Coping strategies: Securing external funding (government projects, corporate sponsorship), industry partnerships, community collaborations; flexible scheduling (use of holidays, rented workshops); explicit instruction in teamwork and communication; allowing exploratory freedom with guardrails; prioritizing modularity and feasibility when scope issues arise. - Scale and context: 38 students; 3 DT cycles within one semester; collaboration with a civic partner; public two-day exhibition demonstrating real-world impact and market testing of student designs.

Findings address the central question of how design thinking can guide interdisciplinary curriculum design and teaching. Implementing structured DT cycles enabled students from diverse backgrounds to integrate knowledge, empathize with users, generate insights, and iteratively prototype and test real-world solutions. The approach strengthened both soft skills (communication, collaboration, empathy, consensus-building) and hard skills (basic making, prototyping) when supported by scaffolding and expert input. The study underscores that authentic, field-connected tasks deepen learning but require significant resources, time, and institutional flexibility. Visual tools and vertical communication mitigated disciplinary language gaps. Instructor guidance balanced autonomy with alignment to learning goals. However, semester-length constraints and single-instructor models can limit technical depth and team diversity, highlighting the need for institutional support, funding, and flexible curricular structures. Overall, DT offers a coherent, human-centered framework that advances interdisciplinary competence and prepares students for complex societal challenges.

- Design thinking is a suitable and effective methodology for interdisciplinary curriculum design and teaching in higher education, promoting human-centered problem solving, iterative prototyping, and integration of diverse disciplinary perspectives. - Effective interdisciplinary teaching benefits from: equitable classroom culture; strategic questioning; extensive use of visual tools; experiential, field-based learning; progressive POV practice; structured feedback and testing; and guided autonomy from the instructor. - Implementing authentic, community-facing projects within a standard semester poses challenges in time, resources, and technical training depth. Instructors can mitigate these through external partnerships, funding, expert co-teaching, and careful scaffolding, but institutional support is critical. - Recommendations: allocate fixed institutional funds and seek government/industry collaborations; adopt flexible curricular formats (modular or intensive) to enhance depth; prioritize depth over breadth in task design; and iteratively adapt courses based on student feedback. Future research should compare instructors from varied disciplinary backgrounds and examine students’ attitudes to refine interdisciplinary curriculum design.

- Perspective emphasis: The study primarily presents the instructor’s viewpoint; students’ perspectives on interdisciplinary learning are limited. - Observation constraints: Researchers observed peripherally to avoid disruption and did not capture within-group discussions in real time, relying on post-interviews for some interaction data. - Instructor background: The instructor’s humanities/social sciences background emphasized observation and interviews; results may differ with instructors from science/technology fields. - Generalizability: Single-course, single-institution case study within a specific cultural and temporal context (post-pandemic Taiwan) limits generalizability. Future work should compare instructors across disciplines and gather comprehensive student attitude data.