Benchmarking design-thinking as a tool for education: a systematic review and future research agenda

Arushi Bathla, Ginni Chawla, Ashish Gupta
{"title":"Benchmarking design-thinking as a tool for education: a systematic review and future research agenda","authors":"Arushi Bathla, Ginni Chawla, Ashish Gupta","doi":"10.1108/bij-09-2023-0603","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeDesign-thinking (DT) in education has attracted significant interest from practitioners and academics, as it proffers new-age thinking to transform learning processes. This paper synthesises extant literature and identifies the current intellectual frontiers.Design/methodology/approachFirst, a systematic-literature-review was undertaken employing a robust process of selecting papers (from 1986 to 2022) by reading titles, abstracts and keywords based on a required criterion, backward–forward chaining and strict quality evaluations. Next, a bibliometric analysis was undertaken using VOSviewer. Finally, text analysis using RStudio was done to trace the implications of past work and future directions.FindingsAt first, we identify and explain 12 clusters through bibliometric coupling that include “interdisciplinary-area”, “futuristic-learning”, “design-process” and “design-education”, amongst others. We explain each of these clusters later in the text. Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics (STEAM), management education, design and change, teacher training, entrepreneurship education and technology, digital learning, gifted education and course development) Secondly, through co-word-analysis, we identify and explain four additional clusters that include “business education and pedagogy”, “content and learning environment”, “participants and outcome” and finally, “thinking-processes”. Based on this finding, we believe that the future holds a very positive presence sentiment for design thinking and education (DT&E) in changing the 21st century learning.Research limitations/implicationsFor investigating many contemporary challenges related to DT&E, like virtual reality experiential learning, sustainability education, organisational learning and management training, etc. have been outlined.Practical implicationsAcademics may come up with new or improved courses for the implementation of DT in educational settings and policymakers may inculcate design labs in the curricula to fortify academic excellence. Managers who would employ DT in their training, development and policy design, amongst others, could end up gaining a competitive advantage in the marketplace.Originality/valueThis study conducted a comprehensive review of the field, which to our limited knowledge, no prior studies have been done so far. Besides, the study also outlines interesting research questions for future research.","PeriodicalId":502853,"journal":{"name":"Benchmarking: An International Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Benchmarking: An International Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/bij-09-2023-0603","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

PurposeDesign-thinking (DT) in education has attracted significant interest from practitioners and academics, as it proffers new-age thinking to transform learning processes. This paper synthesises extant literature and identifies the current intellectual frontiers.Design/methodology/approachFirst, a systematic-literature-review was undertaken employing a robust process of selecting papers (from 1986 to 2022) by reading titles, abstracts and keywords based on a required criterion, backward–forward chaining and strict quality evaluations. Next, a bibliometric analysis was undertaken using VOSviewer. Finally, text analysis using RStudio was done to trace the implications of past work and future directions.FindingsAt first, we identify and explain 12 clusters through bibliometric coupling that include “interdisciplinary-area”, “futuristic-learning”, “design-process” and “design-education”, amongst others. We explain each of these clusters later in the text. Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics (STEAM), management education, design and change, teacher training, entrepreneurship education and technology, digital learning, gifted education and course development) Secondly, through co-word-analysis, we identify and explain four additional clusters that include “business education and pedagogy”, “content and learning environment”, “participants and outcome” and finally, “thinking-processes”. Based on this finding, we believe that the future holds a very positive presence sentiment for design thinking and education (DT&E) in changing the 21st century learning.Research limitations/implicationsFor investigating many contemporary challenges related to DT&E, like virtual reality experiential learning, sustainability education, organisational learning and management training, etc. have been outlined.Practical implicationsAcademics may come up with new or improved courses for the implementation of DT in educational settings and policymakers may inculcate design labs in the curricula to fortify academic excellence. Managers who would employ DT in their training, development and policy design, amongst others, could end up gaining a competitive advantage in the marketplace.Originality/valueThis study conducted a comprehensive review of the field, which to our limited knowledge, no prior studies have been done so far. Besides, the study also outlines interesting research questions for future research.
作为教育工具的设计思维基准:系统回顾与未来研究议程
目的教育领域的设计思维(DT)引起了从业人员和学术界的极大兴趣,因为它提供了改变学习过程的新时代思维。本文对现有文献进行了综述,并确定了当前的知识前沿。首先,我们进行了系统的文献综述,通过阅读标题、摘要和关键词,根据所需的标准、后向链和严格的质量评估,对论文(从 1986 年到 2022 年)进行了严格的筛选。然后,使用 VOSviewer 进行文献计量分析。研究结果首先,我们通过文献计量耦合确定并解释了 12 个集群,其中包括 "跨学科领域"、"未来主义学习"、"设计过程 "和 "设计教育 "等。我们将在下文中逐一解释。科学、技术、工程、艺术和数学(STEAM)、管理教育、设计和变革、教师培训、创业教育和技术、数字化学习、资优教育和课程开发) 其次,通过共同词分析,我们确定并解释了另外四个集群,包括 "商业教育和教学法"、"内容和学习环境"、"参与者和结果 "以及 "思维过程"。基于这一发现,我们认为,设计思维与教育(DT&E)在改变 21 世纪的学习方式方面有着非常积极的前景。研究的局限性/影响对于调查与 DT&E 相关的许多当代挑战,如虚拟现实体验式学习、可持续发展教育、组织学习和管理培训等,我们已经进行了概述。在培训、发展和政策设计等方面采用 DT 的管理者,最终可能会在市场上获得竞争优势。 独创性/价值本研究对该领域进行了全面回顾,据我们所知,迄今为止还没有进行过这方面的研究。此外,本研究还为今后的研究勾勒出了有趣的研究问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信