2.1. Design Thinking Process
The design thinking process is characterized by its non-prescriptive sequence of steps, allowing for fluid movement and iterative progression across stages. This inherent flexibility empowers practitioners to reframe problems and adapt the process to suit the evolving demands of solution development [
18]. The essence of the design thinking process lies not in following a linear and sequential set of steps but in a complex and iterative process where multiple stages between the starting point and the destination overlap and allow for backtracking. Moreover, it is designed to enable a team to refine ideas and explore new directions, facilitating the repetition of a single process more than once.
Since the 2000s, design thinking has been significantly adopted into the business field. Curedale explicitly stated that the meaning of design thinking has evolved and, since the 2000s, it has expanded into the mindsets of business [
19]. Many companies, including Apple, Samsung, Hyundai, Coca-Cola, and Microsoft, have integrated design thinking into their new product development and business strategy. This has led to a diversification of the design thinking process.
However, the interpretation of the education field’s design thinking process differs from that in the business context. In businesses where generating results is crucial, the implementation stage is emphasized and specified to include an action road map and market launch. In contrast, implementation is relatively less emphasized in the education sector. In the process proposed by IDEO and SAP, the final stage is the implementation phase, designed as an experimentation stage for business execution. IDEO emphasizes business model, pilot, and storytelling through the deep dive methodology in the implementation phase [
20]. Similarly, SAP divides the process into explore, discover, design, and deliver stages, emphasizing business innovation and execution during the deliver stage [
21].
In contrast, the representative design thinking process in the education field follows Stanford d. School’s design thinking process [
20]. It emphasizes a human-centered approach rather than prioritizing business factors. This process is divided into five main stages. The first stage is “empathize” to comprehend the user’s experience for whom you are creating the design. It grasps the emotions that influence user behavior and identifies needs and problems that users may not be aware of. This stage forms the foundation of the human-centered design process, which profoundly engages with people. The second stage is “define,” where the insights gained from empathy are unpacked and synthesized into concrete and meaningful problem statements. This stage includes analyzing and integrating the discoveries derived from your empathy work to establish a user-centric perspective, which will be the focal point for addressing your design solutions. The third stage is “ideate”, where alternative solutions to the problems found in the define stage are generated. This phase focuses on extensively exploring diverse solutions by developing a substantial volume of varied possibilities. This approach will enable you to transcend conventional thinking and venture into a wide range of innovative ideas. The fourth stage is “prototype”. This process converts conceptual ideas into tangible prototypes, facilitating immersive experiences and interactions. Through this iterative process, participants can gain deeper insights and understanding of users, further fostering empathy and enhancing the development of solutions. The final stage is the “test”. Participants conduct trials with high-resolution prototypes, carefully analyzing observations and feedback to refine the designs iteratively. This iterative process not only helps gain valuable insights into user behavior but also allows for continuous improvement and refinement of the initial user perspective.
2.2. Online Learning and Design Thinking Education
The categorization of online learning is contingent upon several factors, including the mode of communication between educators and learners, the level of learner participation, and the potential for adapting educational content. Online learning modalities, such as video conferences, facilitate real-time interaction and simultaneous access for educators and learners. It fosters active engagement and enables students to collaborate towards shared learning objectives through group discussions. In line with Bonwell and Eison’s classification [
22], synchronous online classes fall under the category of active online learning, characterized by student involvement and participation in class discussions and activities. Wingfield and Black emphasize that active learning encompasses a range of various practices, such as incorporating moments of reflection during lectures, integrating brief writing exercises, facilitating small-group discussions within larger class settings, employing survey instruments, quizzes, and self-assessment exercises, conducting laboratory experiments, organizing field trips, and incorporating debates, games, and role play into the learning process [
23].
In contrast, in an asynchronous online class, there is a restriction on immediate interaction between educators and learners. The learning process takes place independently at each individual’s preferred time. The educational content remains consistent without alterations. As per Wingfield and Black’s classification [
23], asynchronous online education, such as massive open online courses (MOOCs), falls under the category of passive online learning. In this mode, professors predominantly deliver lectures, while opportunities for active student participation, discussions, and experiential exercises are limited in the class [
24,
25]. Thirty five design thinking courses are available on twelve prominent online education platforms, including Coursera and edX [
24]. Wrigley highlighted that only two programs are offered at the expert level within this selection of MOOC-based design thinking courses [
24]. Most courses tend to focus on introductory content, covering basic knowledge and design thinking principles [
24]. For design thinking that require team activities, asynchronous education of MOOC has a limitation of real time communication. Without the inclusion of learner collaboration and the establishment of a potential community of practice, the interactive aspect necessary for effective design thinking engagement is lacking within MOOC environments.
The rapid online expansion since COVID-19 has fueled the development of advanced technologies in education. Integrating digital technologies into online learning is evolving to enhance the quality of the classroom environment through real-time feedback and interactive engagement [
26]. This trend encourages students’ active participation and endeavors to achieve better educational outcomes. Schmucker et al. conducted research to train machine learning models that predict the academic performance of future students by utilizing various types of log data from previous students [
27]. This approach involves multiple specialized student performance models trained for different aspects of the curriculum and then combined to predict student performance collectively [
27]. Chen and Ciu introduced a comprehensive framework to predict learners’ outcomes and latent factors in online education [
28]. This framework employs deep learning-based collaborative filtering to capture learner–item interactions and enable personalized learning and cognitive diagnosis for individual students. It evaluates past performance and recommends personalized learning content [
28].
The evolving trend in online education demands that students fully comprehend and efficiently use online education systems. To achieve this, students will require guidance in learning and independently utilizing the system, along with an understanding of the competencies needed for self-directed learning. Yilmaz et al. proposed the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into an online learning system to provide personalized guidance and support, particularly during problem-solving [
29]. This includes adaptive mastery tests (AMT) to assess competency and intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) for dynamic assessment and adaptive feedback [
29]. These AI-driven enhancements can improve the learning experience and outcomes in LMSs and MOOCs, offering students a more tailored and supportive approach [
29]. Sanusi et al. investigate the competencies needed for AI education among students [
30]. The study emphasizes the importance of students’ cognitive, teamwork, self-learning, and human–tool collaboration competencies in enhancing their understanding of AI through course content. Teamwork and human–tool collaboration are required elements of AI-based online education, fostering creativity, innovation, and motivation among students [
30].
However, the development of online education systems and the integration with advanced technology continue to progress. In this regard, the effectiveness of active online learning, particularly synchronous online classes such as Zoom, in the context of design thinking have been a topic of debate. According to Forbes, students’ participation in Zoom classes are more active than in offline classes due to a decreased sensitivity to mutual evaluation [
10]. In addition, Kern’s research revealed that in synchronous group discussions, students produced two to four times more sentences than face-to-face discussions, enhancing their language communication skills [
8]. Lim demonstrated positive evaluations regarding learning satisfaction, cooperative learning understanding, knowledge acquisition and application, practical experience, and improvement of problem-solving skills in online design thinking classes [
11]. Vallis and Redmond found that online and remote delivery modes can contribute to developing novice design thinking skills, process knowledge, and mindsets among students [
12]. Lau explored how virtual simulation, game-based learning, and role-playing practices enhance the learning experiences of design students in online design thinking classes [
13]. Other researchers have introduced diverse methodologies to facilitate design thinking experiences in online settings. Xie’s study highlighted the benefits of using collaborative online tools rooted in design thinking, as they deepen the understanding of group collaborative design and provide valuable inspiration for teachers [
17].
While numerous studies have demonstrated the positive outcomes of online classes, there are still concerns about online education methodology. Kim and Kam emphasized that interactive teaching and learning strategies, employing diverse digital platforms and content, significantly impact empathy, relationship formation, and active communication among learners in non-face-to-face settings [
14]. These factors serve as crucial determinants of class quality. Park further explained that, in online-oriented classes, the absence of interaction between instructors and learners compared to face-to-face courses and the limitations in effectively utilizing digital devices and content raise concerns about potential declines in class quality [
31]. A study by Sørum et al. discovered that students prefer live lectures while simultaneously desiring access to recorded video lectures [
32]. Moreover, the recording of lectures is regarded as a positive aspect by students, and those who seldom or never turn on their cameras during classes did not expect others to show their faces either [
32,
33].
2.3. Design Thinking and Mindsets
In the past two decades, the expansion of design thinking to the business and education fields has viewed design thinking as a mindset that fosters creativity, innovation, and problem-solving. Curedale described design thinking as the mindset of business during the 2000s, as shown in
Figure 2 [
1,
19]. Rather than merely following a linear set of steps, design thinking embraces a set of attitudes, beliefs, and cognitive frameworks that guide individuals and teams toward innovative solutions. Martin emphasized abductive thinking, highlighting the harmonious integration of analytical and intuitive thinking in design thinking [
34]. The more cognitive approach using both parts of the brain was highlighted to utilize design thinking and synthesize logic. Brenner et al. categorized design thinking into the fusion of divergent and convergent thinking [
35]. Carlgren et al. defined design thinking as a process for developing long-term innovation capability involving the dimension of mindset [
36].
Various scholars have emphasized the significance of mindset in design thinking with the evolution of its perspectives. According to Kimbell, the absence of the mindset during design thinking practice can hinder the achieving of desired outcomes [
37]. In design thinking, the fundamental approach involves forming interdisciplinary teams composed of members with diverse backgrounds. However, Schweitzer pointed out that having a collaborative mindset in team members is more important than forming such interdisciplinary teams [
38]. Tim Brown also highlighted the requirement for T-shaped talents in design thinking, illustrating the necessity of empathy and integrative thinking [
39]. A T-shaped expert is described as someone who is an outstanding specialist in their own field and, at the same time, possesses the ability to understand other domains and interact with experts in those fields [
39]. Stanford University provided insights into the significance of acquiring the design thinking mindset. At Stanford d. School, design thinking is not seen as a set of tools or techniques but as a mindset that fosters a human-centered, creative, and empathetic approach to innovation and problem-solving [
40].
A central objective of design thinking education is to nurture creative confidence [
18]. Creative confidence entails the self-belief to embrace risks, learn from failure, and creatively address challenges to yield innovative solutions. Kelley and Kelley emphasized that design thinking education should foster resilient and optimistic creative confidence [
41]. As shown in
Figure 3, Rauth et al. stressed that creative confidence is cultivated by experiencing the design thinking process and developing the required mindsets [
18]. This nurturing of creative mindsets occurs through exposure to processes and the development of behavioral patterns in specific situations. Consequently, these mindsets lead to a preference for creative behavior in uncertain and chaotic situations.
In the action-oriented stage above, establishing the necessary mindset in design thinking is essential for fostering creative confidence. Dweck explained that the mindset, which influences creativity, can be developed and cultivated through training [
42]. Kelly indicates that creative confidence is a skill developed through practice, not merely an innate talent [
33]. While the process may initially feel uncomfortable, discomfort diminishes over time and is replaced with creative confidence and abilities [
33].
Design thinking is perceived as a mindset rather than mere tools and techniques. The objective of design thinking education, fostering creative confidence, is achieved through cultivating requisite mindsets via experiential learning. Assessing the level of mindset acquisition and variations therein can serve as a valuable metric for evaluating the effectiveness of design thinking education.