The evolution of artificial intelligence has heightened the disparity between higher education outcomes and industry requirements, particularly concerning critical thinking and problem-solving competencies (Finley, 2021; Edmondson, 2016). Design thinking emerges as a human-centred, interdisciplinary approach to problem-solving that cultivates creativity and adaptability—skills that remain resistant to automation (Brown, 2008; IDEO, 2023). However, implementing design thinking pedagogy presents significant challenges that necessitate carefully constructed learning environments (Boling et al., 2020; McLaughlin & Lodge, 2019). To effectively teach design thinking, students need guidance to embrace failure and learn, with experts modeling the design process and aiding in navigating its complexities (Boling et al., 2020; Leverenz, 2014; Micheli et al., 2018; Panke, 2019).  Research acknowledges that appropriate scaffolding can address these challenges through coaching, task structuring, reflection, and modeling (Collins et al., 1991; Tabak & Reiser, 2022). However, there is limited understanding of how such scaffolding should be provided for learning design thinking. Scaffolding refers to dynamic support tailored according to students’ needs, and it also includes fading support out to enable students’ independence on tasks. This case study examines how scaffolding should be provided to enhance design thinking in the context of a design thinking course in higher education. More specifically, it investigates the role of scaffolding in two teams’ design processes in terms of expected design cognition and design thinking capabilities.

Designing a course on design thinking necessitates a thoughtful distinction between the design process and design cognition. The design process includes (a) problem areas where students are expected to focus on problem formulation, goal analysis, solution reframing, and (b) solution areas where students work on generating and evaluating solutions (Cross, 2023; Dorst, 2011). Design cognition encompasses the higher- and lower-order thinking skills that support designers' activities and artefact creation throughout the design process (Gero & Milovanovic, 2020; Hay et al., 2020), including problem-solving, decision-making, evaluation, and abductive reasoning skills (Garbuio & Lin, 2020; Hay et al., 2020). 

Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) defined scaffolding as the dynamic support that more knowledgeable others offer, facilitating a learner's progression beyond their current capability level. Based on the literature, scaffolding is conceptualised along two dimensions: its characteristics and functions. Scaffolding characteristics define the essential qualities and purposes of scaffolding, while its functions clarify how it operates and the responsibilities assumed by the instructor (Wood et al., 1976). 

Scaffolding characteristics include contingency, intersubjectivity, and transfer of responsibility. Contingency involves customizing support based on students' current needs and continuously assessing those needs (Pol et al., 2010). Intersubjectivity focuses on building shared meaning to help learners internalize scaffolding for task performance (Stone, 1988; Puntambekar & Hübscher, 2005). Finally, the transfer of responsibility refers to when to adjust the level of support and empower learners to take on more responsibility (van de Pol et al., 2010). Scaffolding functions include recruitment, reduced degrees of freedom, direction maintenance, marking critical features, frustration control, and demonstration. They outline how scaffolding can effectively support learners under the specific function of a tutor as a scaffolding provider (Wood et al., 1976).

The study utilizes a holistic multiple-case study design (Yin, 2018), focusing on two groups of students (Team A and Team B) enrolled in a 14-week-long online design thinking course during the 2022-2023 Fall semester. The course structure emphasized the characteristics of design thinking, synthesised from the literature, i.e., interdisciplinary collaboration, real-world problem-solving, and iterative processes. Weekly sessions included lectures, small group activities, and reflections in both the problem and solution areas, progressing from research and problem framing to ideation, prototyping, and testing. In addition to these course design elements, instructors, who were professional designers, provided tailored scaffolding based on needs. Multiple data sources were collected to provide a comprehensive understanding of scaffolding in developing design thinking: Recordings of course sessions, team artefacts, and observations. The data analysis began with identifying expected outcomes for design cognition (DC) (e.g., abductive reasoning, decision-making) and design thinking characteristics (DTC) (e.g., human-centeredness, collaboration) in each course session. We then examined how the different types of scaffolding provided in these sessions, in terms of their functions and characteristics, impacted the design cognition and anticipated design characteristics of the two teams in both the problem and solution areas of the design process.

We identified 33 DC and 46 DTC)indicators across 14 design tasks in both teams. For these outcomes, Team B received more scaffolding. In the problem area, a demonstration was provided exclusively to Team B. In contrast, the solution area featured recruitment and demonstration as distinct scaffolding functions available only to Team A. Due to their architectural background, Team A exhibited strong DC and DTC in the problem area but later struggled with convergence in the solution phase. In contrast, with limited domain knowledge, Team B benefited more from scaffolding and showed greater growth, particularly in the solution phase. Both teams needed more scaffolding for DTC indicators of system orientation and human-centeredness. An analysis of 70 scaffolding interventions showed 36 aligned with expected DC and DTC (e.g., human-centeredness, system orientation), but only 17 shared the same function (e.g., direction maintenance). The content varied significantly due to different team topics. For instance, Team A focused on enhancing data flow and user engagement with museums, while Team B used blueprints to strategise user involvement in community decisions. Intersubjectivity manifested through differentiated communication approaches for scaffolding: concrete guidance for Team B versus reflective tools for Team A. For Team A, instructors used questions and analogies to help them build their understanding, while Team B received real-world examples as references and direct connections to their artefacts. This study illustrates that the adaptive and complex nature of design thinking requires adaptive scaffolding strategies to support learners throughout the design process. The findings can help create a scaffolding framework for researchers and instructors who employ problem-based learning approaches and design thinking pedagogies targeting interdisciplinary groups of learners. Note: AI tools were used for language clarity.

Boling, E., Gray, C. M., & Smith, K. M. (2020). Educating for design character in higher education: Challenges in studio pedagogy. DRS Biennial Conference Series. https://doi.org/10.21606/ drs.2020.120 Brown, T. (2008). Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86, 84–92. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 15(3), 6–11, 38–46. Cross, N. (2023). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Bloomsbury Visual Arts. Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006 Gero, J. S., & Milovanovic, J. (2020). A framework for studying design thinking through measuring designers’ minds, bodies and brains. Design Science, 6, e19. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2020.15 Leverenz, C. S. (2014). Design thinking and the wicked problem of teaching writing. Computers and Composition, 33, 1–12. McLaughlan, R., & Lodge, J. M. (2019). Facilitating epistemic fluency through design thinking: A strategy for the broader application of studio pedagogy within higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 24(1), 81–97. Micheli, P., Wilner, S. J. S., Bhatti, S. H., Mura, M., & Beverland, M. B. (2018, September 8). Doing design thinking: conceptual review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36(2), 124–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12466 Panke, S. (2019). Design thinking in education: Perspectives, opportunities, and challenges. Open Education Studies, 1(1), 281–306. https://doi.org/10.1515/edu-2019-0022 Puntambekar, S., & Hübscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and missed? Educational Psychologist, 40, 1–12. van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6 Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 344–364. Tabak, I., & Reiser, B. J. (2022). Scaffolding. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (Third Edition, pp. 53–71). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295 Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (Sixth Edition). SAGE Publication