Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023;33(2):663-683.
doi: 10.1007/s10798-022-09743-4. Epub 2022 Sep 16.

How future proof is design education? A systematic review

Lore Brosens  1   2 , Annelies Raes  3   4 , Johanna Renny Octavia  5 , Marina Emmanouil  1   2
Affiliations

How future proof is design education? A systematic review

Lore Brosens et al. Int J Technol Des Educ. 2023.

Abstract

Due to a rapidly transforming world, design education needs to adjust itself. To do so, it is essential to understand curriculum gaps in the discipline. This systematic review (n = 95) reports on these gaps and the future readiness of design curricula. The search strategy consisted of both a database search, and discipline-specific journal search in which generalised results about current or future perspectives of design education were found. Structured around the constructive alignment framework, this research found that more 21st century learning objectives focusing on skills next to domain-specific knowledge need to be incorporated, and teaching and learning activities need to be more student-centred and better aligned to industry. Related to assessment, a considerable gap was found in literature on guidelines and means for formative assessment. Design education is not yet ready for the challenges ahead, therefore, the authors hope that design departments rethink their curricula and fill the specified gaps.

Keywords: Constructive alignment; Design Education; Design pedagogy; Future-Proof Education; Skills for industry 4.0; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of interest/competing interests:Not applicable, there are no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Sub-research questions
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Schematic overview of the literature search strategy
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Regions of published research
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Volume of papers on specific skills
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Distribution of learning activities
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Venn diagram of 95 articles, categorised using the CA framework
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Adams RS, Forin T, Chua M, Radcliffe D. Characterizing the work of coaching during design reviews. Design Studies. 2016;45:30–67. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2015.12.007. - DOI
    1. Alamäki A. A conceptual model for knowledge dimensions and processes in design and technology projects. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 2018;28(3):667–683. doi: 10.1007/s10798-017-9410-7. - DOI
    1. Altay B. Multisensory Inclusive Design Education: A 3D Experience. The Design Journal. 2017;20(6):821–846. doi: 10.1080/14606925.2017.1371949. - DOI
    1. Arain, M., Campbell, M. J., Cooper, C. L., & Lancaster, G. A. (2010). What is a pilot or feasibility study ? A review of current practice and editorial policy. 10(67), 1–7 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Augsten A, Gekeler M. From a master of crafts to a facilitator of innovation. How the increasing importance of creative collaboration requires new ways of teaching design. The Design Journal. 2017;20(sup1):S1058–S1071. doi: 10.1080/14606925.2017.1353049. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources