Design thinking seems to be the latest and greatest trend that will change the face of education (or not). However, the notion that design thinking can be simplified into a step-by-step process is absurd (click here to read a brief history of design thinking). As a designer myself–and thus a design thinker–I understand that the way I think when I go about solving an instructional problem is not in fact limited to the ADDIE model, which has similarities to the most oft-cited model that depicts the design thinking process. At the core of my instructional design thinking is knowledge: knowledge of instructional design models, knowledge of instructional design principles, knowledge of learning theories, knowledge of research methods, knowledge of technology integration, knowledge of what good learning design looks likes (and bad). Furthermore, the way I think as an instructional designer is not the way an engineer thinks, or an architect thinks, or a graphic designer thinks. To think like any one of those types of designers would require becoming one. So, here are my thoughts on design thinking:
- Design thinking is not a generic way of thinking. Design thinking is a contextual way of thinking.
- There are as many ways of design thinking as types of designers.
- Design thinking cannot be taught.
- Design thinking is the application of expert knowledge. Expert knowledge comes from training (formal education, apprenticeships).
- Design thinking is the outcome of expert learning.
Does the generic design thinking process have utility? Certainly, as long as we realize that the outcome of using a generic design thinking model with students is probably not radically different from using any generic problem-solving model. In fact, the scientific method is not that different from the 5-step design thinking process, as illustrated in the table below:
| Design Thinking Process | Scientific Method |
| Empathize | Ask a Question |
| Define the problem | Do Background Research |
| Ideate (brainstorm) | Construct a Hypothesis |
| Prototype | Design the Study |
| Test | Test the Hypothesis |
Empathizing requires asking questions. Defining the problem requires background research. Ideating should stem from the defined problem in the same way that a hypothesis is formed from knowledge gained during background research. Both prototype design and study design require systematic planning. Finally, testing is essential to both processes. You can even compare the Big6 to the Design Thinking Process and see similarities.
Using a design thinking model does not turn students into design thinkers anymore than the scientific method turns students into scientists or the Big6 model turns students into librarians. But, these generic problem solving models do offer a guide for developing critical thinking and problem solving skills IF they are tied to a strong knowledge base (e.g., reading, research, curriculum). Design thinking is just the latest player in the educational trend game.
On a final note, check out award-winning graphic designer Natasha Jen’s excellent critique of design thinking.
Designer Librarian 
Hi Amanda. Thanks for a thoughtful post about design thinking and integrating it into general education. What caught my attention was “Design thinking cannot be taught.” That’s exactly what I’ll be doing this fall for SJSU’s iSchool – teaching a course in design thinking for LIS students. I created and taught this 2-credit course for the first time in fall 2017 and it went reasonably well. That said, I tend to agree somewhat. I don’t think I can teach an LIS student to be a design thinker. What I am seeking as an outcome is to expose them to designerly ways of thinking and how they could apply those principles to their library practice. Yes, we go through the phases of the design process. Yes, the students develop and conduct library-oriented design challenges. Yes, they are exposed to critiques of design thinking (there is a discussion board post based on watching Jen’s video).
Ultimately I would want my students to experience design activity for themselves and come to their own conclusions about why, how and when they’d want to engage in a design challenge with their library colleagues and community members. Being able to expose them to the Design Thinking Toolkit for Libraries certainly helps, as it is a resource that gives librarians a good pathway to developing and implementing a local design challenge. Perhaps it would have been better if they’d called it “The Librarian’s Toolkit for Identifying and Solving Problems” – then it might not carry all the design thinking as fad baggage. That’s how I present it to my students – as another tool they can use to be user centered in improving the library user experience (in the course I regularly connect DT to UX). What’s particularly challenging is teaching all of this online – certainly not the optimal way to teach design skills (though at my own institution and others, instructional design and technology is now taught entirely online).
By no means is SJSU the only iSchool offering either a design thinking course or other modes of integrating design principles into their curriculum (U Washington, Syracuse, Simmons – to name a few). I’ve suggested on multiple occasions that there is a good deal of design activity that is part of day-to-day librarianship, so for me it makes sense to integrate some design thinking education into the LIS education curriculum. In conversations with others teaching these courses, I don’t believe the goal is to turn LIS grads into design thinkers – or to have them graduate believing they are now designers – but rather, as you say, to give them “a guide for developing critical thinking and problem solving skills IF they are tied to a strong knowledge base”. Given the uncertain, fast changing, ambiguous landscape for libraries and information seeking behaviors, to my of thinking this is the exact sort of skill future librarians need to bring to the workplace.
Hi Steven,
At the ALISE conference this year, design thinking was one of the major topics of conversation. I understand the need to introduce the concept to information school students, especially considering that it is now terminology used in the new AASL standards. However, it had me thinking about how it should be approached in the LIS curriculum. I suppose if I were teaching it, I would make it project-based, creating the conditions in which students might develop the dispositions of design thinking (analysis, analysis, analysis).
On the other hand, I think systems thinking would be more valuable to the LIS curriculum. It can be tied to design thinking (see https://thesystemsthinker.com/integrating-systems-thinking-and-design-thinking/), but would be much easier to teach since it is a well-developed and systematic method of analysis for problem and solution finding that includes a whole lot of concept mapping.
Regardless, I hope that some of your design thinking students become inspired to pursue certificates or degrees in instructional design or interaction design because that expertise is incredibly useful for everything from designing instructional materials to interface design (catalog, library website, subject guides) to event programming at the library. To solve the big organizational problems that libraries face, I see systems thinking as most useful. Design solutions may be part of the process, but specialized design knowledge is not necessary—if that type of knowledge is needed, a designer can be consulted.
Thanks for the great response!
Amanda