Design thinking for interdisciplinary learning and global competence in higher education: an integrative framework

The call for university students to be equipped with global competence (GC) is growing urgent as graduates enter an increasingly interconnected world. GC refers to the capacity for individuals to understand global issues, appreciate diverse perspectives and interact effectively across cultures (Deardorff, 2006; OECD, 2018). However, recent reviews of the literature have pointed to significant limitations in current practice. These include the absence of standardised tools to assess effectiveness of GC development (Jiaxin et al., 2024), a lack of conceptual clarity and structured educational frameworks (Richter and Kjellgren, 2024) and limited research on effective implementation strategies (Islam and Stamp, 2020). Moreover, there is a strong reliance on the relatively exclusive international experiential learning programmes as the primary vehicle for GC education among students. This approach remains inaccessible to many students due to financial or structural barriers within higher education (HE) (Cao and Meng, 2020; Sofyan et al., 2025). Such a scenario creates an equity gap whereby students from privileged backgrounds are more likely to benefit from GC experiences when compared with less privileged peers (Teng and Cosier, 2024). These disparities highlight the need for inclusive strategies that democratise GC education and widen access to a broader audience (Cobb and Couch, 2022; Majewska, 2023).

To address the challenges of effective GC development within HE settings, interdisciplinary learning (IL) is a promising pathway as it offers opportunities for students to synthesise knowledge across different fields and engage with real-world challenges (Islam and Stamp, 2020; Songer and Breitkreuz, 2022). Foundational scholarship on interdisciplinarity positions IL as the intentional integration of insights and methods across domains to tackle complex problems (Klein, 1993; Repko and Szostak, 2017). One example sits within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines where there is a growing emphasis on integrating social sciences into the curriculum to better prepare graduates amidst evolving global demands (Yamada, 2018). This takes the form of module integration, cross-departmental enrolment, and intercultural learning within pedagogical activities (Smith and Paracka, 2018). While there are forthcoming efforts, the field still lacks clarity on how IL can be scaled successfully using robust pedagogical methods to serve an increasingly diverse student population (Chandra et al., 2025; Mokski et al., 2022).

Given the growing need to advance GC and the promise of IL to meet this demand, design thinking (DT) provides a practical approach to address this gap. Originally developed for product development and innovation (Brenner and Uebernickel, 2016; Liu and Lu, 2020; Vendraminelli et al., 2023), DT is a human-centred and iterative approach that promotes empathy, collaboration and creativity (Du et al., 2012; Henriksen et al., 2017). Recent studies show that DT can enhance problem-solving abilities and workplace readiness of students (Guaman-Quintanilla et al., 2023; McLaughlin et al., 2022; Tsai et al., 2023). However, the role of DT in supporting IL for GC development remains underexplored, especially when grounded in educational theory. Existing models for GC education in HE mainly focus on structural strategies and leadership outcomes (Bilderback and Thompson, 2025; Songer and Breitkreuz, 2022). This situation signals an opportunity to explore and consider pedagogical tools like DT which can be applied at the classroom and institutional levels. Therefore, this study is guided by two research questions built upon opportunities identified within the literature:

This study contributes to the literature by proposing a conceptual framework that integrates DT with two established concepts: intercultural competence model (ICM) and constructivist learning theory (CLT). The proposed framework strengthens the existing models in two ways. Firstly, it clarifies the learning mechanism with CLT by showing how competencies can be developed through social interaction and active construction of knowledge in collaborative design work. Secondly, it looks beyond the classroom to explore institutional conditions that enable GC to scale more efficiently. These features make the framework a practical bridge between theory and practice. Drawing on 59 peer-reviewed studies, the proposed framework offers a model that is grounded on theory and supports curriculum innovation and inclusive learning design. This framing also aligns with UNESCO’s calls for education that advances global citizenship and intercultural aims (UNESCO, 2015, 2021).

This study is grounded in two complementary frameworks: ICM (Deardorff, 2006; Deardorff and Arasaratnam-Smith, 2017) and CLT (Piaget, 1950; Vygotsky, 1980). These frameworks were chosen because they align with the foundations of GC specifically empathy and collaboration, and are well suited to iterative approaches such as DT. These frameworks also help to explain how GC can be cultivated through mindset shifts in intercultural behaviours and structured learning (Smith and Paracka, 2018). This connection is especially relevant to DT as it encourages learners to be human-centred and engage with diverse perspectives within the classroom and beyond (Guaman-Quintanilla et al., 2023; McLaughlin et al., 2022).

The ICM views intercultural competence as a cyclical process starting with attitudes (e.g. openness, respect), progressing to knowledge and skills, and leading to internal outcomes (e.g. empathy, adaptability) that translate into appropriate behaviours (Deardorff, 2006; Deardorff and Arasaratnam-Smith, 2017). This model aligns well with DT’s emphasis on empathy and iteration (Hantsiuk et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2020; Micheli et al., 2019) which are qualities required for meaningful intercultural engagement (Smith and Paracka, 2018; Sofyan et al., 2025). Through activities embedded within a DT process (e.g. observation, interviews, immersion), students are empowered to develop curiosity and openness (Choi et al., 2024; Dykhnych et al., 2022). With these competencies, students would be able to nurture the ability to understand global systems (Bilderback and Thompson, 2025). In the context of this study, DT is positioned as a tool to develop practical skills and enable a reflective learning process that supports sustained GC development in the long term.

In complementing ICM, CLT explains how learners build knowledge through active and social experiences. The CLT framework suggests that knowledge or skill acquisition is constructed when learners engage with real-world problems and interact meaningfully with others (Chuang, 2021; Thomas et al., 2014). From this perspective, learning involves the active absorption of facts which is also shaped by prior experiences (Chuang, 2021; Ledoux and McHenry, 2004). In the context of HE, CLT is relevant to GC education as it supports learning environments where students collaborate across disciplines and cultures. Recent studies have highlighted the importance of structured approaches in teaching GC whether through competency-based education models (Majewska, 2023) or practice-oriented pedagogical strategies (Ramos et al., 2021). This emphasis on experiential learning aligns directly with DT’s iterative process which encourages experimentation and prototyping (Pande and Bharathi, 2020). Further, recent advances in prototyping within the literature have shown how the design processes can deepen student empathy (Lee and Park, 2021), and dynamically shape the way students think (Verganti et al., 2021).

In practice, a learning process anchored on CLT empowers students by giving them autonomy to choose how they learn, which strengthens their problem-solving capabilities (Chuang, 2021). This approach also encourages interdisciplinary thinking as learners are prompted to connect ideas across different fields which would force them to broaden their knowledge base and outlook (Brassler and Dettmers, 2017; Chandra et al., 2025). In this regard, ICM and CLT provide a coherent foundation for this study as they highlight the outcomes associated with GC and guide the design of learning environments that can facilitate the desired goals. When combined with DT, these frameworks promise a practical way to structure IL and GC development that is inclusive and scalable across HE.

To answer the research questions, this study adopts an integrative literature review (ILR) approach. An ILR was chosen because it enables synthesis across diverse theoretical frameworks and empirical approaches (Torraco, 2005; Whittemore and Knafl, 2005). This method is especially appropriate for addressing continuously evolving topics within the interests of this study (Whittemore and Knafl, 2005). Unlike other types of reviews, ILR facilitates the integration and interpretation of existing literature to generate new insights and inform future research (Snyder, 2019). In doing this, a strategic literature search was conducted to ensure comprehensiveness and transparency of selection. The relevant literature was sourced from key academic databases, namely, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar using keyword combinations such as “global competence”, “intercultural competence”, “interdisciplinary learning”, “design thinking”, “human-centred design”, “experiential learning”, “innovative pedagogy” and “higher education”.

From this process, the search results were then restricted to peer-reviewed journal articles published within the past decade, between 2014 and 2025 to ensure relevance and recency. The selection of the decade leading to the present year was to capture changes that have taken place before and after the COVID-19 pandemic, which has significantly shaped the HE sector globally. Foundational works predating 2014 were cited for theoretical grounding only and were not counted within the review literature. Further, clear inclusion and exclusion criteria were established to determine the suitability of sources. Inclusion criteria were articles published from 2014 to 2025, peer-reviewed articles, and relevant content to GC, IL and design thinking (DT). Both empirical research and theoretical papers were included to ensure a comprehensive review, and articles that fell outside these criteria were excluded to ensure relevance. The initial search of the relevant literature returned 68 records. After removing duplicates and conducting further filtering via the inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 59 studies were included in the final review. A table outlining the inclusion and exclusion criteria and a PRISMA flow diagram presenting the document selection are included in  Appendix 1 and  2.

Further to literature search and identification, four activities were undertaken. These include evaluation of data from the selected studies, extraction of relevant information, analysis of patterns that are categorised into themes and development of conceptual framework. Details of these activities are as follows:

1. Data evaluation: Each article was critically evaluated for methodological rigour, relevance and significance of findings (Torraco, 2016). Only studies that met these criteria were included in the final analysis. The appraisal considered clarity of research questions, appropriateness of methods and credibility of evidence, as well as stated limitations.

2. Data extraction: Key information from each article (i.e. authors, research method, key findings) was recorded in a structured matrix. This helped to organise the literature and allowed easier identification of common themes and gaps. Some additional fields were also captured including context, setting, participant characteristic and instrument used, to support comparative synthesis.

3. Data analysis: Thematic analysis was used to identify patterns across the selected studies. This method enabled review across different source types and helped to explain how they relate (Braun and Clarke, 2021). It also allowed flexibility when analysing a broad range of ideas. This analysis followed a reflexive thematic approach in three cycles: initial coding of all texts into the extraction matrix; deductive mapping to ICM and DT elements to ensure theoretical alignment; and inductive refinement to develop cross-cutting themes. The process also involved reading and coding articles in several iterations to identify key themes in three main areas: best practices for developing GC and IL in HE; effective strategies and impending challenges; and how DT is used in universities.

4. Conceptual framework development: The final step of the ILR review was to develop a conceptual framework using the key themes identified. This involved gathering the main findings from the literature to create a structured model that explains their relationships and possible applications.

This study is a conceptual synthesis based on an integrative review of existing literature and presents no primary empirical data.

GC is increasingly seen as an essential part of HE which reflects the complex mix of skills expected of students today (Majewska, 2023; Richter and Kjellgren, 2024; Teng and Cosier, 2024). At its core, GC is about students being able to interact effectively across cultures by demonstrating the right attitudes, knowledge and skills (Deardorff, 2006). While Deardorff’s (2006) model focuses on the intercultural aspects of GC, this study takes a broader view. It includes the ability to engage with global challenges and systems as emphasised by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). GC has been integrated into key frameworks such as the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which highlights the importance of preparing students to deal with global issues (OECD, 2019). As this framework gained momentum, recent critiques stressed the need for careful interpretation and warned against overgeneralisation when it is applied (Bailey et al., 2023; Engel et al., 2019).

Specifically, a growing number of scholars have raised concerns about the way the OECD’s GC framework has been used in PISA, especially on its real-world impact. Research has shown that the assessment may be biased and potentially disadvantaging certain groups of students depending on their socio-economic background (Aydogan and Tat, 2025). This is further compounded by criticisms that the framework sidelined perspectives from the Global South while promoting a dominant Western view (Grotlüschen, 2018). These concerns have led to real consequences such as the decision by Germany not to take part in the GC assessment due to concerns on measurement reliability (Sälzer and Roczen, 2018). Critics also argued that the focus of GC frameworks on vague global citizenship goals can distract from tackling deeper issues like structural inequality (Engel et al., 2019; Jooste and Heleta, 2017). The OECD’s design of GC is also said to be driven by economic priorities rather than humanitarian values (Auld and Morris, 2019). These critiques point to the need to continuously refine and rethink how GC is defined and applied across different education systems.

Despite the prevalence of GC development in HE and strong interest from both proponents and critics, significant opportunities for further research arise. Teaching GC effectively remains a challenge with ongoing efforts needed to enhance instructional approaches (Majewska, 2023). In relation to teaching methods, while the definition of GC and its components is becoming more refined, there is still a lack of standardised tools to assess its development among students and faculty (Jiaxin et al., 2024). Current strategies deployed by HE institutions include intercultural collaboration, mobility programmes and virtual engagements (Richter and Kjellgren, 2024), but their impact is often limited by the suggested absence of reliable assessment (Jiaxin et al., 2024; Majewska, 2023). Recent studies stressed the importance of such tools to help align curriculum design and scale up successful GC initiatives (Crawford et al., 2020; Li, 2013). These gaps point to the urgent need for inclusive and accessible teaching approaches that support the development of GC more systematically, which presents an opportunity for the consideration of IL and DT.

IL has emerged as an effective approach for developing GC within HE as it encourages the integration of perspectives and knowledge from diverse fields (Islam and Stamp, 2020; Ngoc and Bin, 2025; Songer and Breitkreuz, 2022). STEM graduates in the USA effectively develop GC through interdisciplinary general education courses and study abroad programmes as these experiences significantly relate to their capabilities and potential (Yamada, 2023). The integration of intercultural competencies into the core curricula of HE is also deemed to be critical (Islam and Stamp, 2020). IL is seen as a shift from traditional models as it can significantly help students adapt to international settings, with collaboration and innovation being key enablers (Bilderback and Thompson, 2025). These insights highlight the growing use of IL in preparing well-rounded graduates as they prepare themselves to enter the workforce (Hains-Wesson and Ji, 2020; Striolo et al., 2023). It has also now become a necessity for students to not only master the subjects that they majored in during their studies but also understand how they are able to enable impact as future leaders (Costa et al., 2019; Oudenampsen et al., 2023).

While the benefits are clear, IL approaches face significant institutional and practical barriers. Communication difficulties, disagreements across subjects and differences in expectations are hindering the full potential of IL (Brassler and Dettmers, 2017). Low motivation or limited prior experience among students may cause the IL experience to make minimal impact when compared to a more focused single-discipline programmes (Xu et al., 2022). Thus, clear institutional strategies, comprehensive training and stakeholder assessment are some of the mitigations that can be proactively taken to address such challenges (Kjellgren and Richter, 2021). In this regard, recent efforts include globalised learning experiences and professional development opportunities for educators as initiatives to equip students effectively across all levels (Dimitrieska, 2023). These efforts signal the potential and opportunity for effective mitigation although the challenges of IL can hamper trust or motivation across learning ecosystems.

Originally developed within the fields of innovation and product design, DT has gained substantial traction within HE as an effective methodology to foster interdisciplinary collaboration and enhance student outcomes (Guaman-Quintanilla et al., 2023; McLaughlin et al., 2022; Wang, 2024). The roots of DT span across design cognition and reflective practice, and its relevance to complex problem-solving is widely discussed within the literature (Cross, 2006; Dorst, 2015; Lawson, 2010). Given that DT puts focus on the user within a specific design process, any solution that is put forth requires thorough assessment of different interdependencies and influencing factors; an approach comparable to systems thinking in that considers interdependencies (Buchanan, 2019). As an iterative process, DT consists of five distinct stages: empathise, define, ideate, prototype and test (Deitte and Omary, 2019; Lee and Park, 2021). This process takes different shapes and forms, depending on the institution in which DT is being applied. The pioneers in promoting the upskilling and application of DT include IDEO, Stanford d.school and the LUMA Institute which have played an important role in commercial product design and also public policy development over the years. When applied across HE domains, the inclusive and flexible framework of DT encourages students to approach problems creatively and iteratively refine solutions based on continuous feedback (Choi et al., 2024; Dykhnych et al., 2022).

From the review conducted on the literature of GC and IL implementation in HE, educators face significant barriers to creativity including time constraints, high expectations and risk aversion (Henriksen et al., 2017). These are areas that DT can potentially overcome as progress is done in an iterative manner and expectations are managed proactively as stakeholders are kept informed (Hendricks et al., 2018; Redante et al., 2019; Verganti et al., 2021). Further, DT is an inclusive process that welcomes diverse ideas that would then be integrated collaboratively and fairly; an exercise that can also be supported by applied artificial intelligence (McGowan, 2019; Sreenivasan and Suresh, 2024). As an enabler of IL, DT can also provide a structured approach to bridge arts and sciences and enable educators to integrate interdisciplinary lessons (Henriksen, 2017). Through its analytical and creative approach, the incorporation of DT into HE can significantly enhance students’ problem-solving skills (Alvarado, 2025; Guaman-Quintanilla et al., 2023).

This study proposes a practical framework which integrates DT to support IL and GC development for students in HE. This framework is built on insights from the ILR conducted and draws on two key theories: the ICM and CLT. The framework responds to challenges identified from the literature around vague definitions, lack of clear teaching strategies and limited integration of GC in university courses. Therefore, the integration of DT into IL and GC development offers specific actions for educators and universities. Specifically, the five stages of DT (i.e. empathise, define, ideate, prototype, test) match well with how ICM describes the growth of GC starting from developing the right attitudes, building knowledge and skills, and applying them internally and externally. DT also aligns with CLT by emphasising active real-world learning. Table 1 shows how each DT stage can be adapted to help students build GC across disciplines.

To effectively leverage DT for interdisciplinary GC, universities must embed it systematically across multiple levels via teaching methods, curriculum design and institutional strategies. In teaching, DT can be used through project-based learning where students work together on global issues (e.g. climate change, public health) by drawing on different academic fields such as engineering, business and the humanities (Cummings and Yur-Austin, 2022; Jiang and Pang, 2023). The DT process helps students approach problems in steps which encourage them to learn from others and refine their ideas. This is a method that fits well with the CLT, which values social and active learning. Additionally, other DT-inspired teaching methods include case competitions and role-playing activities which allow students to immerse themselves in real-world situations or simulations (Huq and Gilbert, 2017; Sheehan et al., 2018). The iterative nature of DT allows students to apply knowledge in practical ways, reflect on it and improve themselves towards deeper learning (Marks and Chase, 2019).

In practice, the framework can be delivered as a simple stage sequence based on the DT process (i.e. empathise, define, ideate, prototype, test) with brief assessment touchpoints at each stage to evidence GC development. Examples include a short attitude reflection (empathise), a problem-framing exercise (define), an idea portfolio with selection rationale (ideate), a prototype review (prototype) and stakeholder feedback with action plans (test). Assessments built around DT phases like prototyping and testing allow for ongoing feedback which can support personal growth among students (Blundell, 2024; Whelan et al., 2024). This spirit of developing well-rounded individuals aligns strongly with both the frameworks of ICM and CLT.

At the institutional level, universities can support DT by offering faculty training, collaborative workshops and course design opportunities (Levy, 2017; McLaughlin et al., 2022; Xu et al., 2018). HE institutions can also provide incentives such as scholarships and research grants to encourage global and interdisciplinary DT projects among students and staff (Kjellgren, 2024; Kjellgren and Richter, 2021). Additionally, assessment tools should reflect DT’s iterative nature to clearly measure GC outcomes, an area identified as lacking in past research. To illustrate these processes, the “Integrative Framework of Design Thinking for Interdisciplinary Global Competence” is illustrated in Figure 1. The framework presents how each stage of the DT process aligns with the key elements of ICM and CLT, and deepens the understanding of how GC can be developed by focusing on hands-on learning, reflection and institutional support. When DT is fully integrated into HE systems, it promises a clear and structured way to help students become globally competent through practical and interdisciplinary development experiences.

For research, the proposed framework provides a testable proposition which links the DT process to intercultural outcomes. For example, the integration of “empathising” with “perspective-taking” and “pilot testing” with “intercultural behaviour”. This presents opportunities for further research which are discussed in the next section. For practice, the proposed framework can be used as the basis for the design of modules or programmes, mainly if the objective is to incorporate clear intercultural goals among students. To enable this adaptation, however, adjacent changes need to also happen including revision of assessment rubrics to be more reflective, upskilling of staff capability (e.g. DT facilitation, intercultural dialogue) and platforms for cross-disciplinary ideation at faculty or departmental level. Therefore, support for senior management or leadership is critical as key enablers.

For policymaking in HE, the framework provides a case for interdisciplinary project work to be a requirement for project approval. This implementation needs to be carefully carried out, however, so that any interdisciplinary integration is done with strategic purpose and not merely for requirement’s sake. For society, the framework holds potential of supporting employability and civic readiness in the way it develops graduates who are able to frame problems across differences, while co-creating solutions. There are also opportunities for intercultural cohesion through structured dialogue and collaborative design with internal and external partners. Ultimately, the framework is an enabler for lifelong learning pathways as it inculcates transferable skills that are practical beyond university level (e.g. problem framing, prototyping, ethics).

As a conceptual and non-empirical study, the proposed framework has not been statistically or experimentally validated. Therefore, it needs to be acknowledged that the literature identified may reflect selection and language bias and focuses on HE contexts. While indicative measures are proposed, their validity and reliability remain to be established until further empirical analysis. In this regard, future research should conduct evaluations of the framework in diverse institutional settings (i.e. public or private sector, selected regional setting), compare outcomes against alternative pedagogical approaches and examine longitudinal impacts on intercultural behaviours and graduate outcomes.

This study examined the role of DT as a mechanism to foster IL in the development of GC in HE. Grounded in the ICM and CLT, the proposed framework offers an iterative process that facilitates the integration of diverse knowledge domains. It also embeds real-world experiences which are critical to GC development and behavioural transfer.

The ILR conducted confirms that IL is essential for cultivating GC, yet ongoing challenges remain in translating this into practice. These include persistent silos across faculties and rigid assessment structures within HE institutions. With the incorporation of DT across curricular and co-curricular activities, HE institutions can equip students with practical competencies including collaborative problem-solving, intercultural awareness and creative thinking. These competencies matter for employability and civic readiness in diverse workplaces. Through further assessment in real-world contexts, it can be ascertained how the framework can be scaled beyond single modules towards programme level adoption through aligned assessment and faculty upskilling.

The key recommendations from this study include the systematic integration of DT into teaching practices, curriculum structures and assessment strategies. For module design, it offers a ready sequence (i.e. empathise, define, ideate, prototype and test) that is paired with assessment touchpoints to support formative GC development. Implementation should adopt continuous improvement that strengthen experiential learning and drive continuous improvement over time. Institutional alignment and faculty capability building are also critical to sustaining this approach.

Future research should focus on empirical validation of the proposed framework through action research or longitudinal investigations that can assess its impact on student learning and employability outcomes. This effort would involve participation across all levels namely institutional, administrative and the student body. Additionally, exploring the scalability and adaptability of DT across different disciplinary and cultural settings is also essential to test and refine the application of the framework.

In conclusion, DT provides a compelling opportunity to rethink interdisciplinary education in HE. Through the integration of DT stages to CLT mechanisms and ICM outcomes, the framework clarifies how learning changes and offers a robust pathway to cultivate GC in measurable ways. Positioning DT as both a pedagogical tool and an institutional strategy can help universities prepare students to navigate complexity and lead with empathy in an increasingly interconnected world.

Not applicable as this study is a review of published literature and involves no human participants.

Microsoft Copilot was used in proofreading this manuscript. All ideas, analyses and conclusions were developed by the author.