design thinking in architecture education

DESIGN THINKING IN ARCHITECTURE EDUCATION ISSUES, LIMITATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS MOHAMMED GHONIM Associate Professor, Cairo University, Egypt [email protected] Abstract The design process in architecture deals with complex, contradicting, and problematic issues. It requires and employs a wide range of information, adopts the techniques of critical as well as creative thinking, generates multiple and alternate ideas, and identifies the appropriate solution for a design problem. Design thinking refers broadly to all of the cognitive activities that designers employ in operating the design process to generate ideas, solve problems, and make decisions. This study aims to address a number of issues related to design thinking in architecture education by investigating the limitations of its application and providing suggestions for overcoming them, with special reference to Egypt. In order to achieve this aim, the study applies analytical and deductive methodologies, adopting a qualitative research approach supported by a number of semistructured interviews with a sample of expert academic Egyptian architects. The study is divided into four parts. The first part investigates the issue of stimulating design thinking. The second discusses the mentor-student relationship that promotes design thinking. The third investigates the limitations of adopting collaborative design thinking. The fourth handles the issue of developing design thinking in architecture curricula. Then, the study concludes by listing several design problems characteristics that stimulate creative thinking, identifies the mentor-student relationship in design studios, proposes an approach for adopting collaborative design thinking in architecture education, and shows the need to revise design skills courses in architecture curricula. Keywords Design Thinking, Architecture Education, Design Skills, Creativity, Collaborative Design Introduction Design is a creative activity that is motivated by the need to create new products. It activates humans’ mental, personal, and productive skills. The design process in architecture deals with complex, contradicting, and problematic issues. It requires and employs a wide range of information, adopts critical and creative thinking techniques, generates multiple and alternate ideas, and identifies the appropriate solution for a design problem. Design thinking refers broadly to all of the cognitive activities that designers employ in operating the design process to generate ideas, solve problems, and make decisions. It is a composite cognitive competence that integrates component cognitive skills such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Theoretically, there is no agreement on the best practices for teaching and learning design thinking; therefore, there is a need to explore design education methodologies that stimulate students’ creative thinking and qualify them to think properly, independently, and originally without relying on their mentors and/or mimicking precedents. Citation: Ghonim, Mohammed. 2016. “Design Thinking in Architecture Education: Issues, Limitations, and Suggestions.” Proceedings of the 3rd International Architectural Design Conference on Design and Nature ARCHDESIGN ’16, 553-561, Istanbul, Dakam Publishing.

The purpose of this study is to promote the education of architectural design. It aims at addressing a number of issues related to design thinking in architecture education, investigating their related limitations, and providing suggestions to overcome them, with special reference to Egypt. In order to achieve this aim, the study applies analytical and deductive methodologies, adopting a qualitative research approach supported by a number of semi-structured interviews with a sample of expert academic Egyptian architects. The research is divided into four parts. The first part investigates the issue of stimulating design thinking. The second discusses the mentor-student relationship that promotes design thinking. The third investigates the limitations of adopting collaborative design thinking. Finally, the fourth part handles the issue of developing design thinking in architecture curricula. Ten semi-structured interviews were conducted. A set of 11 open-ended questions were used for a thorough exploration of the target issues and the validation of the proposed suggestions. The sample included 10 academicians from 5 Egyptian universities: Cairo University, Alexandria University, Al-Azhar University, Assiut University, and Tanta University. Their academic experience ranged from 20 to 45 years. In addition, they had broad expertise in teaching different levels of design studies, and had experience in teaching design at a number of universities in Saudi Arabia and Lebanon. The saturation achieved through these 10 interviews was considered sufficient for the purposes of this study. 1. Stimulating Design Thinking Design thinking is not a type of knowledge that can be taught theoretically, but rather is a skill that should be practiced and learnt through solving real-life problems (Lawson, 2005; Kimbell, 2011). Design education aims at producing mentalities that are capable of thinking originally and independently. It also aims at preparing qualified designers who can adapt their thinking strategies to meet the situations they encounter during the design process (Razzouk & Shute, 2012). The purposes of this part of the study are to investigate the impact of design problems on stimulating creativity and identify the characteristics of design problems that positively enhance design-thinking skills, leading to creative products. Several researchers have explored the nature of problems that can stimulate creativity. Nagasundaram (1997) confirmed that there is a strong relationship between the stimulation of creativity and the nature of a problem. This relationship has an impact on the creative process as well as the product. In their attempts to understand the characteristics of creative problems, Reiter-Palmon et al. (2009) indicated that creativity depends on the nature of the solved problems and the measure of creativity used to evaluate the solution. Paul and Elder (2008) reported that engaging the mind with genuine problems worthy of analysis and solving is the keystone of motivating creative and critical thinking. Dorst (2003) described design problems as being partly determined by the designer’s own perspective of them. Beaudouin-Lafon and Mackay (2003) believed that design constraints do not have a certain negative impact on design creativity because, in general, all designers work under constraints; however, problems arise when constraints are excessive, not essential, or result from the poor framing of a design problem. Getzels (1982) stated that “at the core of an effective solution is a productive problem.” Moreover, he argued that creativity is motivated by the need to explore creative problems. He pointed to the practice of creativity during the exploration process, noting that the formulation of creative problems is regarded as just as important as the formation of solutions. The design pedagogies that are currently applied are based on the theory of reflection-in-action developed by Schon (1983) in the context of problem-based learning. Therefore, the formulation of the

design problem (that is, the focus of the learning activity) becomes vital for the success of the learning process. Design education aims at developing creative thinking; consequently, it is essential to investigate the characteristics of design problems that stimulate creativity. In the present study, the issue of stimulating design thinking and creativity in architecture education was investigated by conducting interviews. The interviewees were asked to determine the relative importance of design problems as an influential factor on design creativity, in comparison to other factors that included designers’ skills, design methodologies, and evaluation methods. The majority of the interviewees (n=7) agreed that formulating design problems that stimulate the students’ creative thinking is a vital part of developing creativity in architecture education; one opinion reported that it is the foundation for achieving creativity in design. A smaller number (n=3) reported that it is a vital part, and one pointed out that its importance increases in the senior levels of education. The characteristics of design problems that stimulate creativity in architecture education were explored and categorized. About half of the participants (n=6) claimed that design problems should deal with new situations and tackle unique issues. However, a minority (n=3) rejected this claim on the grounds that architectural problems are usually repetitive. One participant stated that creativity can still be achieved through adopting new approaches to common problems. About half of the participants (n=6) argued that design problems must have a degree of ambiguity and should not be totally clarified by the instructor at the beginning of the design project so as to simulate realistic design problems. However, one participant completely rejected this idea. A minority (n=3) showed partial agreement, with two of them commenting that the situation depends to some extent on the students’ level. There was a consensus among the participants (n=9) that design problems should not be completely specified by the instructor in order to allow the students to participate in formulating its final setting. One participant partially agreed with this opinion and commented that this situation requires a high level of guidance from the instructor. About half of the participants (n=6) claimed that design problems must have a balanced number of constraints and variables, and allow more space for alternate solutions. While the minority (n=3) showed relative agreement with this claim, one of them mentioned that highly creative students can deal with a large number of constraints. However, one participant expressed an opposite opinion, saying he believes that more constraints might provide more challenges and foster creativity. A question about how the complexity of design problems impacts creativity with respect to students’ level received varying degrees of agreement. On the one hand, one third of the participants (n=3) believed that complexity hinders creativity. On the other hand, one third (n=3) had an opposing opinion. Also, about one third (n=4) indicated that design problems should incorporate a balanced level of complexity to foster creativity. The following opinions were recorded: adopting complexity depends on the available time; although adopting complexity is required, large-sized projects do not always introduce complex design problems; adopting project size complexities may be valid for the upper levels of design education; and creativity is not a quantitative issue, and therefore it should not be measured by quantitative values. The characteristics of the design problems and their impact on creativity are structured and represented in the chart shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The characteristics of design problems and their impact on creativity. Source: Ghonim. The discussions in the interviews also showed that many of these characteristics require a higher level of balance when formulating a design problem in order to positively stimulate creativity, otherwise stimulation may be negatively affected. For example, the amount of constraints in a design problem is a critical issue; therefore, while adding constraints fosters creativity, an excessive number of constraints hinders it. Hypothetically, there seems to be a bell curve relationship between the number of design constraints and their impact on stimulating creativity, as shown in Figure 2; if the design constraints are excessive or few, the creativity breaks down, but a balanced number of constraints seems to stimulate creativity more effectively.

Figure 2. A representation of the relation between the number of design constraints and their impact on creativity. Source: Ghonim. During the interviews, most comments noted that adopting design problems that stimulate creativity requires ideal situations of architecture education. It was concluded that to promote

creative thinking in design education, certain limitations should be avoided, such as variation in the qualifications of architecture students, an imbalanced ratio of students to design instructors, and difficulties in establishing mentorships in design studios. 2. Sustaining Mentorships in Design Studios Teaching and learning design thinking depend on the harmonious relationship between the mentors and students in the design studio. The stages towards achieving this harmony include defining the nature of this relationship and understanding the roles of both students and mentors. Acting within these roles results in better design teaching practices that lead to better learning outcomes through design curricula. In fact, the responsibilities in design thinking activities are distributed between mentors and students and require interactive participation in the thinking activities during the design process. In addition, the difference in the expertise of the students and that of the mentors should be taken into account. This expertise defines the role of the mentor as the regulator of the whole design process. The model in Figure 3 speculates on the roles of students and mentors during the stages of the design process. In the problem finding and understanding stage, mentors and students have equivalent responsibilities in exploring the design problem as both of them seek to identify it, taking into consideration balancing the information that the students actually have and the information they use. According to Cross (2004), students in this stage should not get deeply involved in gathering data about the design problem in an attempt to fully understand it before starting to solve it; this is because design problems are gradually understood through design solutions.

Figure 3. The mentor’s and student’s roles in design studios. Source: Ghonim. During the idea generation stage, students are solely responsible for providing design ideas, while mentors act as facilitators who foster the students’ creativity and stimulate their thinking skills. The mentors’ proficiency at this stage lies in their ability to encourage the students to think originally and avoid imitating precedents. Failure to fulfill these roles results in the sharing of ideas among students, which can be realized during juries. During the evaluation stage, mentors have the key responsibility but should allow students to participate in the evaluation activities in order to enhance their critical thinking as well as communication and persuasion skills.

3. Encouraging Collaborative Design Thinking Creativity is defined as the process of producing something novel and useful (Amabile, 2012). In the middle of the twentieth century, Guilford emphasized the concept of a creative personality. Consequently, subsequent research on creativity had tended to focus intensively on the personal attributes of individuals (Glaveanu, 2010). Rhodes (1961) then changed this perspective after he introduced the results of his analysis of creativity. These results emphasized the effect of the social factor on creativity; he called it the “creative press.” According to this social perspective of creativity, the role of society was limited to supporting creativity by motivating creative individuals, stimulating the creative process, and appreciating the creative products. In the last three decades, a new perspective on creativity evolved with the emergence of new concepts such as group and collaborative creativity. This perspective proposes that at least two individuals think together to produce one creative work. Consequently, a number of researchers oriented themselves towards investigating this new pattern of human creativity, aiming at revealing its impact and methodologies. Collaborative creativity is usually a synonym for teamwork creativity. In teamwork, a team has shared leadership roles and produces a unified product, whereas in group work, there is one clearly focused leader, and the product is the accumulated work of several individuals (Tucker & Abbasi, 2012). This perspective on creativity highlighted the importance of communication and interaction skills in promoting collaborative creativity (Csikszentmihalyi & Sawyer, 1995). Human creativity came to be seen as resulting from the interaction of an individual’s thoughts through activities that take place in social contexts (Engestrom, 2001; Fischer et al., 2005). It was reported that most creative products are the outcome of cooperative thinking, enthusiastic conversations, and shared concerns amongst a group of people (Fischer et al., 2005). Collaborative creativity facilitates the elaboration of ideas as individuals build on each other’s ideas (Hargadon & Bechky, 2006). Collaborative creativity should be seen as a complement to individual creativity, not a replacement for it (Fischer et al., 2005). Accordingly, the idea of purely individual creativity in architecture may be considered a myth. Practicing architecture is a collaborative process that involves interaction among many stakeholders, namely: architects, clients, users, and engineers. This interaction usually increases on complicated and large-scale projects where the collaboration of experts from different disciplines becomes essential. A survey performed by the National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB) showed that almost all participants (96%) believed that architects work in environments that require collaborative teamwork with professionals from other disciplines (Norbut et al., 2012). However, Nicol and Pilling (2000) warned against the inability of architectural schools to produce well-qualified graduates equipped with the skills required for collaborative architectural practice. This inability is attributed to the fact that design studios are directed towards developing individual architects as unique and gifted designers, rather than towards preparing them to collaborate. Tucker and Abbasi (2012) indicated that to overcome this limitation, the adoption of collaborative design in education assessment methodologies that are capable of evaluating both individual and team assignments must be implemented. In the present study, the issue of collaborative design thinking in architecture education was investigated by conducting interviews. The participants were asked to identify their opinions about the idea of adopting collaborative design thinking in architectural practice. Half of the participants (n=5) doubted its validity, and four of them commented that design is a creative individual work. However, a minority (n=3) accepted the idea; two of them explained that collaboration in design is not usually the result of teamwork, but is rather the result of group work guided by a leader. A minority (n=2) supported the idea of collaborative design, emphasizing that architectural practice involves collaboration among architects, engineers, clients, and users. The participants were asked to express their views on applying collaborative design in architecture education. The majority (n=8) denied the validity of the idea. Only one partially agreed

and another endorsed the use of collaborative design in architecture education on the grounds that it allows for more elaboration on design ideas and supports design decisions. In general, the participants’ views indicated that their experiences with applying collaborative design in architecture education were negative and unsuccessful. The limitations to adopting collaborative design in education were discussed during the interviews, and a number of these limitations were reported. First, the system of evaluation in education is based on evaluating a student’s individual performance; therefore, it becomes difficult to evaluate their performance within a team. Second, there are a number of personal factors that hinder homogeneity and harmony amongst team members. Third, the current situation in some design studios—especially at senior levels—does not allow for the application of collaborative design activities in addition to mentorship, as they become limited to places where students meet their instructors and take notes on their projects, while the design jobs are mostly done outside the studio. Fourth, the process of collaborative design is built on thinking-by-communication, whereby effective communication between design team members enhances thinking, allows for elaboration of ideas, and increases the validity and value of these ideas. It is possible for graduation projects to utilize collaborative design activities effectively in order to create a simulation of real-life architectural practice. The present study suggests redesigning graduation project courses to allow for a smooth school-to-work transition, and to provide richer learning activities that trigger reflective thinking. Offering interdisciplinary courses can further engage students in cooperative learning activities. Interdisciplinarity enables engineering, design, and architecture students to participate in sponsored projects supervised by an interdisciplinary team of academicians and experts. The learning outcomes required for each particular specialization must be considered and properly incorporated when designing these courses. Emphasis should be given to enhancing collaboration, communication, and self-learning skills. A representation of the framework for such interdisciplinary graduation projects is shown in Figure 4. Within this framework, the abilities of architecture students to engage in and solve real-life problems can be effectively developed and the individual role of each student can be clearly observed and, consequently, easily evaluated.

Figure 4. A framework for interdisciplinary graduation project courses. Source: Ghonim.

4. Restructuring the Development of Design Thinking In this part, the discussion focuses on exploring the ways architecture curricula can develop design thinking skills in a methodical manner. Developing thinking skills begins in the early stages of school education. According to the cognitive domain of Bloom’s taxonomy, thinking skills gradually evolve from the lower cognitive skills of memorization, comprehension, and application into the higher cognitive skills of analysis, evaluation, and creativity (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Design thinking involves several component abilities such as thinking creatively, engaging the imagination and three-dimensional thinking in the exploration of design ideas, defining problems, gathering information, and applying analyses and judgments (UIA, 2014). Hence, architecture education is expected to develop and enhance these skills, resulting in professionally skilled architects. According to the International Union of Architects (2014), architecture education should involve the acquisition of three major capabilities: design, skills, and knowledge. This reflects that the development of students’ skills incorporates a distinct component in architecture curricula that integrates design and knowledge. This analysis calls for revising the components of the architecture curricula to check the adequacy of skills courses in comparison to design and knowledge courses. Drawing on this perspective, Figure 5 demonstrates the structure of architecture curricula and highlights the area that needs revision and calibration.

Figure 5. The area of skills courses that needs revision and calibration. Source: Ghonim. A preliminary investigation into multiple architecture programs revealed that the majority did not include courses dedicated to developing design thinking skills in a separate manner; some of these programs offered these courses as electives, while a minority offered compulsory courses. This indicates that these programs may only develop design thinking skills through design studios, and that architecture education depends strongly on skills that the students already developed in their pre-university years. Although design studios have an important role in developing design thinking skills, this role occurs occasionally and spontaneously as relevant to the nature of the design project. This study suggests incorporating separate courses on the component abilities of design thinking

into architecture curricula; each course should focus on enhancing a specific design skill by adopting scientific methods, and these courses should be integrated with the traditional courses of project-based studios. This is a common educational practice that has been adopted by other disciplines such as physical education. Football academies, for example, do not just focus on involving the students in football matches to develop their skills, but also aim at developing their component skills of receiving, dribbling, passing, and shooting in a systematic manner. This enables the enhancement of each skill separately, provides precise analysis of the students’ weaknesses and strengths, and facilitates more accurate assessment of their performance (Simpkin, 1998: Special Olympics, 2004). Conclusion This study aimed at investigating a number of issues related to design thinking in architecture education. It investigated the limitations in developing this skill, and provided suggestions to overcome these limitations. Semi-structured interviews with a sample of expert academic Egyptian architects were conducted in order to reach a more comprehensive understanding of these limitations. The impact of design problems on stimulating design thinking and achieving a creative product was investigated. The results of this investigation confirmed that the formulation of design problems is a vital factor in stimulating creative thinking. To stimulate creative thinking effectively, it is recommended that design problems should deal with new situations and tackle unique issues, allow for student participation in formulating their final setting, and involve a balanced level of complexity relevant to the students’ level. In the problem formulation stage, it is crucial to achieve a level of balance among the characteristics of the design problems, because certain characteristics can positively stimulate creativity to a certain extent. This study contributed to identifying the interactive roles of mentors and students in design studios and to describing the nature of their relationship. It indicated that mentors and students have equal responsibilities in exploring design problems. During the idea generation stage, mentors act as facilitators who foster the students’ creativity and stimulate their thinking skills, while the students become solely responsible for providing design ideas. Finally, mentors are mainly responsible for evaluation activities while allowing for and encouraging students to participate. The issue of incorporating collaborative design thinking into architecture education was also investigated. The majority of the interviewees denied the validity of applying collaborative design thinking, which calls for further research on ways to promote this type of thinking in architecture education. A number of obstacles to stimulating it were discussed and reported, including the difficulty of evaluating the individual performance of a student working within a group, and the lack of homogeneity and harmony amongst team members. Since more attention to teamwork in design studios is needed, the study suggested redesigning graduation project courses in a way that motivates collaboration and interdisciplinarity through the participation of students from other engineering and design specializations so as to form a realistic architectural team. In addition, this study conducted a preliminary investigation of a number of architectural programs and showed that they need to include separate courses to develop the component skills of design thinking in a methodical manner. In the end, it is worth mentioning that promoting design thinking in architecture education requires ideal educational situations where architecture students are wisely selected and have equal initial qualifications and competencies, and where effective mentorship is activated. This paper took a broad perspective on some issues related to design thinking in architecture education, while inviting further discussions and research on the same subject.

References Amabile, T. 2012. Componential Theory of Creativity. Working Paper. Harvard Business School. Available at [Accessed March 21 2016]. Anderson, L. & Krathwohl, D. 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy. New York: Longman Publishing. Beaudouin-Lafon, M. & Mackay, W. 2003. Prototyping Tools and Techniques. In J. Jacko & A. Sears, eds., The HumanComputer Interaction Handbook. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 1006-1031. Cross, N. 2004. Expertise in Design: An Overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427–441. Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Sawyer, K. 1995. Creative Insight: The Social Dimension of a Solitary Moment. In R. Steinberg & J. Davidson, eds., The Nature of Insight. Cambridge: MIT Press, 329-361. Dorst, K. 2003. The Problem of Design Problems. The Design Thinking Research Symposium. Available at [Accessed March 12 2016]. Engestrom, Y. 2001. Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an Activity Theoretical Reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156. Fischer, G., Giaccardi, E., Eden, H., Sugimoto, M., & Ye, Y. 2005. Beyond Binary Choices: Integrating Individual and Social Creativity. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63, 482–512. Getzels, J. 1982. The Problem of the Problem. In R. Hogarth, ed., Question Framing and Response Consistency. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 37-49. Glaveanu, V. 2010. Paradigms in the Study of Creativity: Introducing the Perspective of Cultural Psychology. New Ideas in Psychology, 28(1), 79-93. Hargadon, A. & Bechky, B. 2006. When Collections of Creatives Become Creative Collectives: A Field Study of Problem Solving at Work. Organ. Sci., 17, 484–500. International Union of Architects (UIA). 2014. UIA Accord on Recommended International Standards of Professionalism in Architectural Practice. Available at [Accessed November 18 2015]. Kimbell, L. 2011. Rethinking Design Thinking: Part 1. Design and Culture, 3(3), 285-306. Lawson, B. 2005. How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. Great Britain: Architectural Press, Elsevier. Nagasundaram, M. 1997. Creativity, Group Support Systems, and Systems Development. In Wojtkowski et al., eds., Systems Development Methods for the Next Century. Boston: Springer. 39–48. Nicol, D., & Pilling, S. 2000. Architectural Education and the Profession. In D. Nicol & S. Pilling, eds., Changing Architectural Education: Towards a New Profession. London: E. & F. N. Spon. Norbut, M., Galarza, T., & Glaser, P. 2012. Study of Accredited Architectural Education: Electronic Survey Summary. NAAB. Available at [Accessed April 18 2016]. Paul, R. & Elder, L. 2008. The Nature and Functions of Critical & Creative Thinking. Tomales: Foundation for Critical Thinking Press, 45. Razzouk, R. & Shute V. 2012. What Is Design Thinking and Why Is It Important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348. Rhodes, M. 1961. An Analysis of Creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305-310. Reiter-Palmon, R., Illies, M., Kobe, L., Buboltz, C., & Nimps, T. 2009. Creativity and Domain Specificity: The Effect of Task Type on Multiple Indexes of Creative Problem Solving. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity & the Arts, 3, 73–80. Schön, D. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books. Special Olympics. 2004. Football Coaching Guide: Teaching Football Skills. Available at [Accessed January 18 2016]. Simpkin, A. 1998. A Handbook for Teaching Sports. London: Heinemann. Tucker, R. & Abbasi, N. 2012. Conceptualizing Teamwork and Groupwork in Architecture and Related Design Disciplines. Proceedings of the 46th Annual Conference of the Architectural Science Association, (November 2012), Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland.