Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 357
https://doi.org/10.69639/arandu.v13i3.2398
Perceptions of Design Thinking Implementation in
Ecuadorian EFL Classrooms
Percepciones de los docentes sobre la implementación del pensamiento de diseño en
aulas ecuatorianas de inglés como lengua extranjera
Laura Mariscal Touzard
laura.mariscalt@ug.edu.ec
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7418-2797
Facultad de Filosofía, Letras y Ciencias de la Educación / Universidad de Guayaquil
Ecuador
Mariuxi Iliana Castro Flores
mariuxi.castrof@ug.edu.ec
https://orcid.org/0009-0003-6778-7637
Facultad de Filosofía, Letras y Ciencias de la Educación / Universidad de Guayaquil
Ecuador
Shirley Reeves Arboleda
shirley.reevesa@ug.edu.ec
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0192-2934
Facultad de Filosofía, Letras y Ciencias de la Educación / Universidad de Guayaquil
Ecuador
Martha Amelia Castillo Noriega
marthacastillo@uees.edu.ec
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7867-7463
Escuela de Postgrado en Educación/ Universidad de Especialidades Espíritu Santo
Ecuador
Lidia Del Carmen Govea De Bustamante
bgovea@espol.edu.ec
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6770-1261
Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral (ESPOL)
Ecuador
Artículo recibido: 10 junio 2026- Aceptado para publicación:16 julio 2026
Conflictos de intereses: Ninguno que declarar.
ABSTRACT
This study explores Ecuadorian university teachers’ perceptions of applying the Design
Thinking (DT) approach in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms. In the Ecuadorian
labor market, employers increasingly demand graduates who demonstrate not only linguistic
proficiency but also critical thinking, collaboration, adaptability, and problem-solving skills.
However, many university EFL programs continue to rely on traditional, teacher-centered
practices that may not fully respond to these professional demands. Teachers therefore
recognize the need for innovative pedagogical approaches capable of aligning language
instruction with workplace competencies, and DT emerges as a promising alternative. Grounded
in a mixed-methods research design, the study investigates how teachers implement the five
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 358
stages of Design Thinking and how they perceive its impact on students’ EFL skill
development, benefits, and contextual challenges. Unlike intervention-based research, this study
does not implement a controlled experimental treatment; rather, it examines teachers’ reflective
experiences and professional judgments regarding the integration of DT into their existing
pedagogical practices. Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews with
university EFL instructors, while quantitative data were obtained through a structured survey
examining perceptions of improvements specially in speaking, listening, reading, writing, and
vocabulary. Findings indicate strong perceived enhancement in oral communication fluency and
confidence, engagement, alongside increased learner autonomy and critical thinking. Despite
constraints related to time and curriculum alignment, teachers perceive DT as a transformative
and context-responsive framework for Ecuadorian public university EFL settings.
Keywords: Design Thinking, EFL pedagogy, mixed-methods research, teacher
perceptions, communicative competence
RESUMEN
Este estudio explora las percepciones de docentes universitarios ecuatorianos sobre la aplicación
del enfoque de Design Thinking (DT) en aulas de inglés como lengua extranjera (EFL). En el
mercado laboral ecuatoriano, los empleadores demandan cada vez más profesionales que no
solo demuestren competencia lingüística, sino también pensamiento crítico, colaboración,
adaptabilidad y habilidades de resolución de problemas. Sin embargo, muchos programas
universitarios de EFL continúan basándose en prácticas tradicionales centradas en el docente
que pueden no responder plenamente a estas demandas profesionales. Por ello, los docentes
reconocen la necesidad de enfoques pedagógicos innovadores capaces de alinear la enseñanza
del idioma con las competencias del entorno laboral, y el DT surge como una alternativa
prometedora. Con un diseño de investigación de métodos mixtos, este estudio adopta un
enfoque exploratorio para analizar cómo los docentes implementan las cinco etapas del Design
Thinking y perciben su impacto en el desarrollo de las habilidades de inglés como lengua
extranjera (EFL), así como en los beneficios y desafíos contextuales. A diferencia de
investigaciones de tipo experimental, este estudio no aplica un tratamiento controlado; más
bien, analiza las experiencias reflexivas y los juicios profesionales de los docentes sobre la
integración del DT en sus prácticas pedagógicas habituales. Los datos cualitativos se
recolectaron mediante entrevistas semiestructuradas con docentes universitarios de EFL,
mientras que los cuantitativos se obtuvieron mediante una encuesta estructurada que examinó
las percepciones de mejora, en especial en las habilidades de expresión oral, comprensión
auditiva, lectura, escritura y vocabulario. Los resultados indican una fuerte percepción de
mejora en la comprensión y la fluidez oral, en el compromiso y la confianza, así como un
stages of Design Thinking and how they perceive its impact on students’ EFL skill
development, benefits, and contextual challenges. Unlike intervention-based research, this study
does not implement a controlled experimental treatment; rather, it examines teachers’ reflective
experiences and professional judgments regarding the integration of DT into their existing
pedagogical practices. Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews with
university EFL instructors, while quantitative data were obtained through a structured survey
examining perceptions of improvements specially in speaking, listening, reading, writing, and
vocabulary. Findings indicate strong perceived enhancement in oral communication fluency and
confidence, engagement, alongside increased learner autonomy and critical thinking. Despite
constraints related to time and curriculum alignment, teachers perceive DT as a transformative
and context-responsive framework for Ecuadorian public university EFL settings.
Keywords: Design Thinking, EFL pedagogy, mixed-methods research, teacher
perceptions, communicative competence
RESUMEN
Este estudio explora las percepciones de docentes universitarios ecuatorianos sobre la aplicación
del enfoque de Design Thinking (DT) en aulas de inglés como lengua extranjera (EFL). En el
mercado laboral ecuatoriano, los empleadores demandan cada vez más profesionales que no
solo demuestren competencia lingüística, sino también pensamiento crítico, colaboración,
adaptabilidad y habilidades de resolución de problemas. Sin embargo, muchos programas
universitarios de EFL continúan basándose en prácticas tradicionales centradas en el docente
que pueden no responder plenamente a estas demandas profesionales. Por ello, los docentes
reconocen la necesidad de enfoques pedagógicos innovadores capaces de alinear la enseñanza
del idioma con las competencias del entorno laboral, y el DT surge como una alternativa
prometedora. Con un diseño de investigación de métodos mixtos, este estudio adopta un
enfoque exploratorio para analizar cómo los docentes implementan las cinco etapas del Design
Thinking y perciben su impacto en el desarrollo de las habilidades de inglés como lengua
extranjera (EFL), así como en los beneficios y desafíos contextuales. A diferencia de
investigaciones de tipo experimental, este estudio no aplica un tratamiento controlado; más
bien, analiza las experiencias reflexivas y los juicios profesionales de los docentes sobre la
integración del DT en sus prácticas pedagógicas habituales. Los datos cualitativos se
recolectaron mediante entrevistas semiestructuradas con docentes universitarios de EFL,
mientras que los cuantitativos se obtuvieron mediante una encuesta estructurada que examinó
las percepciones de mejora, en especial en las habilidades de expresión oral, comprensión
auditiva, lectura, escritura y vocabulario. Los resultados indican una fuerte percepción de
mejora en la comprensión y la fluidez oral, en el compromiso y la confianza, así como un
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 359
incremento de la autonomía del estudiante y del pensamiento crítico. A pesar de las limitaciones
de tiempo y de la alineación curricular, los docentes perciben el DT como un enfoque
transformador y contextualizado para los entornos de EFL en las universidades públicas
ecuatorianas.
Palabras clave: Design Thinking, pedagogía EFL, investigación de métodos mixtos,
percepciones docentes, competencia comunicativa
Todo el contenido de la Revista Científica Internacional Arandu UTIC publicado en este sitio está disponible bajo
licencia Creative Commons Atribution 4.0 International.
incremento de la autonomía del estudiante y del pensamiento crítico. A pesar de las limitaciones
de tiempo y de la alineación curricular, los docentes perciben el DT como un enfoque
transformador y contextualizado para los entornos de EFL en las universidades públicas
ecuatorianas.
Palabras clave: Design Thinking, pedagogía EFL, investigación de métodos mixtos,
percepciones docentes, competencia comunicativa
Todo el contenido de la Revista Científica Internacional Arandu UTIC publicado en este sitio está disponible bajo
licencia Creative Commons Atribution 4.0 International.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 360
INTRODUCTION
The growing demand for professionals who possess not only linguistic proficiency but
also critical thinking, collaboration, and problem-solving skills has prompted educators to
explore innovative approaches in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) instruction. In higher
education contexts, traditional teacher-centered methodologies may not fully support the
development of these competencies. As a result, pedagogical frameworks such as Design
Thinking have gained attention for their potential to promote student-centered learning,
meaningful communication, and real-world problem solving. Within this context, understanding
teachers’ perceptions of implementing Design Thinking in EFL classrooms becomes essential
for evaluating its educational value.
Despite this shift, many university EFL programs continue to rely on conventional
instructional practices that limit students' opportunities to develop both language proficiency
and transferable professional skills. Recent educational research shows the importance of
integrating pedagogies that simultaneously support communicative competence and higher-
order thinking. In this regard, Design Thinking has been identified as a learner-centered
framework that fosters creativity, collaboration, and analytical reasoning in language classrooms
(Cleminson & Cowie, 2021; Cevikbas & Kaiser, 2022). Accordingly, this study explores
Ecuadorian university teachers’ perceptions of implementing Design Thinking in EFL
classrooms, with particular attention to how they apply its five stages: Empathize, Define,
Ideate, Prototype, and Test in their instructional practices.
Emerging research suggests that Design Thinking may contribute to the development of
integrated language skills, particularly oral communication, writing, organization, and
collaborative interaction. For example, research indicates that DT-based tasks can strengthen
speaking performance, engagement, and language confidence through iterative communication
and real-world problem-solving activities (Almalki, 2023; Swallow & Tomalin, 2024).
However, limited research has examined teachers’ professional judgments regarding how this
approach influences students’ language-learning processes.
Although Design Thinking has gained attention as a transformative pedagogical model,
integrating it into university curricula may pose contextual challenges, including alignment with
curricula, classroom management, and instructional time. Prior research highlights that
innovative methodologies often require adjustments in lesson planning, institutional support,
and pedagogical practices to be effectively implemented (Lake et al., 2024; Wang, 2024).
Consequently, understanding teachers’ perceptions of both benefits and constraints becomes
essential for evaluating the feasibility of adopting DT in EFL contexts. Therefore, this mixed-
methods study draws on qualitative interview data and quantitative survey findings to examine
the perceived benefits and challenges Ecuadorian university teachers identify when integrating
INTRODUCTION
The growing demand for professionals who possess not only linguistic proficiency but
also critical thinking, collaboration, and problem-solving skills has prompted educators to
explore innovative approaches in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) instruction. In higher
education contexts, traditional teacher-centered methodologies may not fully support the
development of these competencies. As a result, pedagogical frameworks such as Design
Thinking have gained attention for their potential to promote student-centered learning,
meaningful communication, and real-world problem solving. Within this context, understanding
teachers’ perceptions of implementing Design Thinking in EFL classrooms becomes essential
for evaluating its educational value.
Despite this shift, many university EFL programs continue to rely on conventional
instructional practices that limit students' opportunities to develop both language proficiency
and transferable professional skills. Recent educational research shows the importance of
integrating pedagogies that simultaneously support communicative competence and higher-
order thinking. In this regard, Design Thinking has been identified as a learner-centered
framework that fosters creativity, collaboration, and analytical reasoning in language classrooms
(Cleminson & Cowie, 2021; Cevikbas & Kaiser, 2022). Accordingly, this study explores
Ecuadorian university teachers’ perceptions of implementing Design Thinking in EFL
classrooms, with particular attention to how they apply its five stages: Empathize, Define,
Ideate, Prototype, and Test in their instructional practices.
Emerging research suggests that Design Thinking may contribute to the development of
integrated language skills, particularly oral communication, writing, organization, and
collaborative interaction. For example, research indicates that DT-based tasks can strengthen
speaking performance, engagement, and language confidence through iterative communication
and real-world problem-solving activities (Almalki, 2023; Swallow & Tomalin, 2024).
However, limited research has examined teachers’ professional judgments regarding how this
approach influences students’ language-learning processes.
Although Design Thinking has gained attention as a transformative pedagogical model,
integrating it into university curricula may pose contextual challenges, including alignment with
curricula, classroom management, and instructional time. Prior research highlights that
innovative methodologies often require adjustments in lesson planning, institutional support,
and pedagogical practices to be effectively implemented (Lake et al., 2024; Wang, 2024).
Consequently, understanding teachers’ perceptions of both benefits and constraints becomes
essential for evaluating the feasibility of adopting DT in EFL contexts. Therefore, this mixed-
methods study draws on qualitative interview data and quantitative survey findings to examine
the perceived benefits and challenges Ecuadorian university teachers identify when integrating
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 361
the Design Thinking approach into the EFL curriculum, offering a comprehensive perspective
on its classroom applications and contextual implications.
Despite the growing uptake of Design Thinking (DT) in educational contexts, the
literature has been predominantly oriented toward student learning outcomes, with
comparatively limited attention to teachers’ perspectives and their situated experiences of
implementation (Yu et al., 2024; Retna, 2015). This imbalance constrains understanding of how
DT is enacted in practice, particularly given that pedagogical innovation is mediated by
teachers’ beliefs, institutional conditions, and contextual constraints. Moreover, empirical
research examining DT within public university settings in Latin America remains
underrepresented in the field. Addressing this gap is critical, as exploring teachers’ perceptions
can illuminate how DT is interpreted, adapted, and evaluated in context, thereby providing a
more practice-oriented account of its pedagogical affordances and limitations within EFL
instruction.
Therefore, this study aims to examine Ecuadorian university teachers’ perceptions
regarding the implementation of the Design Thinking (DT) approach in EFL classrooms within
a public university context. Specifically, it seeks to answer the following research questions: (a)
How do Ecuadorian university TEFL teachers perceive and report applying the five stages of the
Design Thinking process, such as Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test, in their
English language teaching practices? (b) To what extent do university English language teachers
perceive that implementing the Design Thinking approach enhances students’ EFL skills,
including speaking, listening, reading, writing, and vocabulary development? (c) What
perceived benefits and challenges do Ecuadorian university English language teachers identify
when integrating the Design Thinking approach into the EFL curriculum? This mixed-methods
study draws on qualitative interview data and quantitative survey findings to provide a
comprehensive understanding of teachers’ professional judgments, classroom applications, and
contextual considerations related to Design Thinking in Ecuadorian higher education.
Design Thinking
Design Thinking (DT) is a human-centered approach to innovation and problem-solving
that promotes creativity, empathy, collaboration, and iterative learning. Originating in the field
of design and innovation, DT encourages learners to understand users’ needs, generate ideas,
and refine solutions through continuous feedback and experimentation (Brown, 2009; Liedtka,
2018). The framework is commonly structured around five stages: Empathize, Define, Ideate,
Prototype, and Test, which guide learners through cycles of exploration and improvement. In
educational contexts, DT has been associated with active participation, critical thinking, and
collaborative learning, making it particularly relevant for language classrooms that aim to
promote meaningful communication and problem-solving skills (Cleminson & Cowie, 2021).
the Design Thinking approach into the EFL curriculum, offering a comprehensive perspective
on its classroom applications and contextual implications.
Despite the growing uptake of Design Thinking (DT) in educational contexts, the
literature has been predominantly oriented toward student learning outcomes, with
comparatively limited attention to teachers’ perspectives and their situated experiences of
implementation (Yu et al., 2024; Retna, 2015). This imbalance constrains understanding of how
DT is enacted in practice, particularly given that pedagogical innovation is mediated by
teachers’ beliefs, institutional conditions, and contextual constraints. Moreover, empirical
research examining DT within public university settings in Latin America remains
underrepresented in the field. Addressing this gap is critical, as exploring teachers’ perceptions
can illuminate how DT is interpreted, adapted, and evaluated in context, thereby providing a
more practice-oriented account of its pedagogical affordances and limitations within EFL
instruction.
Therefore, this study aims to examine Ecuadorian university teachers’ perceptions
regarding the implementation of the Design Thinking (DT) approach in EFL classrooms within
a public university context. Specifically, it seeks to answer the following research questions: (a)
How do Ecuadorian university TEFL teachers perceive and report applying the five stages of the
Design Thinking process, such as Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test, in their
English language teaching practices? (b) To what extent do university English language teachers
perceive that implementing the Design Thinking approach enhances students’ EFL skills,
including speaking, listening, reading, writing, and vocabulary development? (c) What
perceived benefits and challenges do Ecuadorian university English language teachers identify
when integrating the Design Thinking approach into the EFL curriculum? This mixed-methods
study draws on qualitative interview data and quantitative survey findings to provide a
comprehensive understanding of teachers’ professional judgments, classroom applications, and
contextual considerations related to Design Thinking in Ecuadorian higher education.
Design Thinking
Design Thinking (DT) is a human-centered approach to innovation and problem-solving
that promotes creativity, empathy, collaboration, and iterative learning. Originating in the field
of design and innovation, DT encourages learners to understand users’ needs, generate ideas,
and refine solutions through continuous feedback and experimentation (Brown, 2009; Liedtka,
2018). The framework is commonly structured around five stages: Empathize, Define, Ideate,
Prototype, and Test, which guide learners through cycles of exploration and improvement. In
educational contexts, DT has been associated with active participation, critical thinking, and
collaborative learning, making it particularly relevant for language classrooms that aim to
promote meaningful communication and problem-solving skills (Cleminson & Cowie, 2021).
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 362
Design Thinking and EFL
Ongoing studies have increasingly examined the integration of Design Thinking (DT)
into English as a Foreign Language (EFL) instruction, highlighting its potential to foster
learner-centered practices and enhance communicative engagement. Research in higher
education demonstrates that DT promotes active participation, collaboration, and creative use of
language during classroom activities (Cleminson & Cowie, 2021; Almalki, 2023). In Latin
American contexts, studies indicate that educators perceive DT as a strategy that not only
strengthens communicative competence but also develops problem-solving skills and critical
thinking among TEFL students (Almache-Granda et al., 2024; Reyes-Cruz & Salazar-Navarro,
2024). Moreover, meta-analytic evidence supports positive effects on student engagement and
higher-order cognitive skills (Yu et al., 2024).
Design Thinking phases
The implementation of the Design Thinking process in EFL classrooms is typically structured
around five iterative stages: Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test. During the
Empathize stage, students explore real-life contexts through interviews, surveys, and
discussions, which promote meaningful interaction and active listening. In the Define stage,
learners synthesize information and formulate clear problem statements, fostering analytical
thinking. The Ideate stage encourages brainstorming and collaborative dialogue, allowing
students to generate multiple solutions while using English. As noted by Cleminson and Cowie
(2021), these stages create opportunities for authentic language use, particularly in speaking and
interaction. Similarly, Almache et al. (2024) highlight that this structured process supports the
development of communicative and professional competencies in EFL contexts.
The final stages, Prototype and Test, emphasize production, feedback, and iterative
refinement of ideas. Students develop presentations or project-based solutions, which are later
evaluated through peer feedback and reflection. This process promotes fluency, confidence, and
spontaneous language use, as learners refine their ideas and improve their performance over
time. Reyes-Cruz and Salazar-Navarro (2024) emphasize that these stages are essential for
integrating assessment and reflective learning into EFL instruction, while Zaky (2024)
highlights the pedagogical value of guiding students through iterative cycles of practice and
improvement. Overall, implementing these stages transforms the classroom into a student-
centered environment where language learning is connected to problem-solving, collaboration,
and real-world communication.
Design Thinking Implementation
Design Thinking has been consistently associated with the development of EFL
communicative competence, as it integrates speaking, listening, reading, writing, and
vocabulary in meaningful contexts. Through collaborative tasks such as interviews, discussions,
and presentations, students actively use the language to express ideas and solve real-world
Design Thinking and EFL
Ongoing studies have increasingly examined the integration of Design Thinking (DT)
into English as a Foreign Language (EFL) instruction, highlighting its potential to foster
learner-centered practices and enhance communicative engagement. Research in higher
education demonstrates that DT promotes active participation, collaboration, and creative use of
language during classroom activities (Cleminson & Cowie, 2021; Almalki, 2023). In Latin
American contexts, studies indicate that educators perceive DT as a strategy that not only
strengthens communicative competence but also develops problem-solving skills and critical
thinking among TEFL students (Almache-Granda et al., 2024; Reyes-Cruz & Salazar-Navarro,
2024). Moreover, meta-analytic evidence supports positive effects on student engagement and
higher-order cognitive skills (Yu et al., 2024).
Design Thinking phases
The implementation of the Design Thinking process in EFL classrooms is typically structured
around five iterative stages: Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test. During the
Empathize stage, students explore real-life contexts through interviews, surveys, and
discussions, which promote meaningful interaction and active listening. In the Define stage,
learners synthesize information and formulate clear problem statements, fostering analytical
thinking. The Ideate stage encourages brainstorming and collaborative dialogue, allowing
students to generate multiple solutions while using English. As noted by Cleminson and Cowie
(2021), these stages create opportunities for authentic language use, particularly in speaking and
interaction. Similarly, Almache et al. (2024) highlight that this structured process supports the
development of communicative and professional competencies in EFL contexts.
The final stages, Prototype and Test, emphasize production, feedback, and iterative
refinement of ideas. Students develop presentations or project-based solutions, which are later
evaluated through peer feedback and reflection. This process promotes fluency, confidence, and
spontaneous language use, as learners refine their ideas and improve their performance over
time. Reyes-Cruz and Salazar-Navarro (2024) emphasize that these stages are essential for
integrating assessment and reflective learning into EFL instruction, while Zaky (2024)
highlights the pedagogical value of guiding students through iterative cycles of practice and
improvement. Overall, implementing these stages transforms the classroom into a student-
centered environment where language learning is connected to problem-solving, collaboration,
and real-world communication.
Design Thinking Implementation
Design Thinking has been consistently associated with the development of EFL
communicative competence, as it integrates speaking, listening, reading, writing, and
vocabulary in meaningful contexts. Through collaborative tasks such as interviews, discussions,
and presentations, students actively use the language to express ideas and solve real-world
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 363
problems. This approach promotes authentic communication and interaction, allowing learners
to practice English beyond isolated exercises. As highlighted by Cleminson and Cowie (2021),
Design Thinking creates opportunities for meaningful language use, while Almache et al.
(2024) emphasize its role in strengthening communicative competence in EFL classrooms.
Another key benefit of Design Thinking is its contribution to higher-order thinking skills,
including critical thinking, problem-solving, and creativity. By engaging in stages such as
defining problems, generating ideas, and evaluating solutions, students must analyze
information and make decisions in the target language. This process connects language learning
with cognitive development, allowing learners to use English as a tool for reasoning and
innovation. Reyes-Cruz and Salazar-Navarro (2024) highlight that iterative processes support
reflective thinking, while Zaky (2024) emphasizes the pedagogical value of integrating
problem-solving into language instruction.
Design Thinking also promotes student-centered learning by fostering engagement and
autonomy in the classroom. Students take an active role in generating ideas, making decisions,
and developing solutions, which increases their participation and responsibility in the learning
process. This shift from teacher-centered instruction to learner-driven activities encourages
motivation and deeper involvement in tasks. As noted by Cleminson and Cowie (2021),
collaborative and interactive environments enhance engagement, while Almache et al. (2024)
report that students become more autonomous and responsible when participating in Design
Thinking activities.
Despite these benefits, implementing Design Thinking presents significant challenges,
particularly due to time and curriculum constraints. Teachers often need additional preparation
time to design activities and adapt the methodology to existing course structures. The iterative
nature of the process also requires extended classroom time, which may not always be available.
Reyes-Cruz and Salazar-Navarro (2024) note that integrating Design Thinking into formal
curricula requires careful planning, while Zaky (2024) emphasizes that the approach demands
more structured preparation than traditional teaching methods.
Another significant challenge relates to the complexity of implementing Design Thinking
in classroom settings. Teachers may face difficulties managing large groups, ensuring that all
students understand the different stages, and providing adequate scaffolding throughout the
process. Students may initially struggle to follow the non-linear structure of Design Thinking,
which can affect the progression of tasks. As highlighted by Cleminson and Cowie (2021),
guidance is essential for effective implementation, while Almache et al. (2024) note that teacher
support plays a key role in helping students navigate the stages successfully.
Theoretical Foundations
The adoption of DT in EFL classrooms aligns with multiple complementary learning
theories. Constructivist approaches emphasize knowledge development through active
problems. This approach promotes authentic communication and interaction, allowing learners
to practice English beyond isolated exercises. As highlighted by Cleminson and Cowie (2021),
Design Thinking creates opportunities for meaningful language use, while Almache et al.
(2024) emphasize its role in strengthening communicative competence in EFL classrooms.
Another key benefit of Design Thinking is its contribution to higher-order thinking skills,
including critical thinking, problem-solving, and creativity. By engaging in stages such as
defining problems, generating ideas, and evaluating solutions, students must analyze
information and make decisions in the target language. This process connects language learning
with cognitive development, allowing learners to use English as a tool for reasoning and
innovation. Reyes-Cruz and Salazar-Navarro (2024) highlight that iterative processes support
reflective thinking, while Zaky (2024) emphasizes the pedagogical value of integrating
problem-solving into language instruction.
Design Thinking also promotes student-centered learning by fostering engagement and
autonomy in the classroom. Students take an active role in generating ideas, making decisions,
and developing solutions, which increases their participation and responsibility in the learning
process. This shift from teacher-centered instruction to learner-driven activities encourages
motivation and deeper involvement in tasks. As noted by Cleminson and Cowie (2021),
collaborative and interactive environments enhance engagement, while Almache et al. (2024)
report that students become more autonomous and responsible when participating in Design
Thinking activities.
Despite these benefits, implementing Design Thinking presents significant challenges,
particularly due to time and curriculum constraints. Teachers often need additional preparation
time to design activities and adapt the methodology to existing course structures. The iterative
nature of the process also requires extended classroom time, which may not always be available.
Reyes-Cruz and Salazar-Navarro (2024) note that integrating Design Thinking into formal
curricula requires careful planning, while Zaky (2024) emphasizes that the approach demands
more structured preparation than traditional teaching methods.
Another significant challenge relates to the complexity of implementing Design Thinking
in classroom settings. Teachers may face difficulties managing large groups, ensuring that all
students understand the different stages, and providing adequate scaffolding throughout the
process. Students may initially struggle to follow the non-linear structure of Design Thinking,
which can affect the progression of tasks. As highlighted by Cleminson and Cowie (2021),
guidance is essential for effective implementation, while Almache et al. (2024) note that teacher
support plays a key role in helping students navigate the stages successfully.
Theoretical Foundations
The adoption of DT in EFL classrooms aligns with multiple complementary learning
theories. Constructivist approaches emphasize knowledge development through active
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 364
engagement, social interaction, and problem-solving, aligning with the collaborative, iterative
processes central to DT (Schcolnik et al., 2006). Communicative Language Teaching further
underscores the role of meaningful interaction and authentic communication in language
acquisition (Richards, 2006). Task-Based Language Learning highlights that students develop
linguistic competence through participation in purposeful tasks requiring negotiation of
meaning and collaboration (Ellis, 2003). Collectively, these frameworks support DT as a
methodology that integrates language development with critical thinking, creativity, and learner
autonomy.
METHODOLOGY
Context
This study was conducted at a public university in Ecuador with a staff of 20 EFL teachers and
an enrollment of over 10,000 students, all of whom are required to take English modules as part
of their academic curricula. It is developing students’ communicative skills in foreign
languages, especially English. The program is structured into five progressive modules aligned
with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR): Module 1
corresponds to level A1, Module 2 to A2, Module 3 to B1, Module 4 to B1+, and Module 5 to
B2. Each module focuses on strengthening listening, reading, speaking, and writing skills,
preparing students to communicate effectively in both academic and professional contexts.
Research approach and method
This study adopts a mixed-methods approach with a convergent parallel design,
combining both qualitative and quantitative data to provide a comprehensive understanding of
Ecuadorian university teachers’ perceptions regarding the implementation of the Design
Thinking (DT) approach in EFL classrooms. This mixed-methods approach is a research design
in which qualitative and quantitative data are collected simultaneously, analyzed separately, and
then merged to compare and integrate the results for a comprehensive interpretation of the
research problem. (Creswell and Creswell, 2014). The research is framed within a descriptive-
exploratory scope, as it seeks to describe teachers’ perceptions while also exploring in depth
how they apply the five stages of the Design Thinking process (Empathize, Define, Ideate,
Prototype, and Test) in their teaching practices. Since the study does not manipulate variables or
measure causal relationships, it is classified as a non-experimental, perception-based study
focused on pedagogical experiences rather than measurable learning outcomes.
The sample was selected through a non-probabilistic purposive sampling strategy,
specifically criterion-based and voluntary sampling to respect the ethical procedures of this
public Institution. The participants were university English language teachers who had
previously implemented the Design Thinking approach in their EFL classes and agreed to
participate. This selection criterion ensured that respondents possessed direct pedagogical
engagement, social interaction, and problem-solving, aligning with the collaborative, iterative
processes central to DT (Schcolnik et al., 2006). Communicative Language Teaching further
underscores the role of meaningful interaction and authentic communication in language
acquisition (Richards, 2006). Task-Based Language Learning highlights that students develop
linguistic competence through participation in purposeful tasks requiring negotiation of
meaning and collaboration (Ellis, 2003). Collectively, these frameworks support DT as a
methodology that integrates language development with critical thinking, creativity, and learner
autonomy.
METHODOLOGY
Context
This study was conducted at a public university in Ecuador with a staff of 20 EFL teachers and
an enrollment of over 10,000 students, all of whom are required to take English modules as part
of their academic curricula. It is developing students’ communicative skills in foreign
languages, especially English. The program is structured into five progressive modules aligned
with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR): Module 1
corresponds to level A1, Module 2 to A2, Module 3 to B1, Module 4 to B1+, and Module 5 to
B2. Each module focuses on strengthening listening, reading, speaking, and writing skills,
preparing students to communicate effectively in both academic and professional contexts.
Research approach and method
This study adopts a mixed-methods approach with a convergent parallel design,
combining both qualitative and quantitative data to provide a comprehensive understanding of
Ecuadorian university teachers’ perceptions regarding the implementation of the Design
Thinking (DT) approach in EFL classrooms. This mixed-methods approach is a research design
in which qualitative and quantitative data are collected simultaneously, analyzed separately, and
then merged to compare and integrate the results for a comprehensive interpretation of the
research problem. (Creswell and Creswell, 2014). The research is framed within a descriptive-
exploratory scope, as it seeks to describe teachers’ perceptions while also exploring in depth
how they apply the five stages of the Design Thinking process (Empathize, Define, Ideate,
Prototype, and Test) in their teaching practices. Since the study does not manipulate variables or
measure causal relationships, it is classified as a non-experimental, perception-based study
focused on pedagogical experiences rather than measurable learning outcomes.
The sample was selected through a non-probabilistic purposive sampling strategy,
specifically criterion-based and voluntary sampling to respect the ethical procedures of this
public Institution. The participants were university English language teachers who had
previously implemented the Design Thinking approach in their EFL classes and agreed to
participate. This selection criterion ensured that respondents possessed direct pedagogical
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 365
experience with the approach under investigation (Coyne, 1997). Although the sample is not
statistically generalizable, it is theoretically relevant and appropriate for exploratory perception-
based research, as it provides informed insights from practitioners with firsthand experience in
applying Design Thinking within a public university EFL.
Participants
The participants of this study were university EFL teachers who taught blended B1 and
B1+ courses for more than 5 years. Each course consisted of 56 in-person instructional hours
and 56 hours of autonomous learning. The quantitative survey was administered to seven EFL
teachers (N=7) who met the inclusion criteria and had implemented the DT approach in their
courses during the last two semesters. Five of these seven teachers also participated in the
qualitative semi-structured interviews. The participants received training in Design Thinking
and had prior experience integrating DT stages into speaking and skills-based activities within
their regular teaching practice. To ensure confidentiality and anonymity, participants in this
study are identified using the label “T” (for teacher) followed by the initial letter of their last
name (e.g., T.M., T.G.).
Techniques and instruments to collect information
This study employed a combination of data collection tools, including surveys and
interviews, to systematically gather, analyze, and interpret data to address the research
questions. These instruments contributed to ensuring the study’s credibility, validity, and
reliability. The quantitative component consists of a Likert-scale survey designed to examine
the perceptions of seven EFL teachers (N=7) regarding the impact of Design Thinking on
students’ EFL skills, as well as the perceived benefits and challenges associated with its
implementation. The instrument included items measured on a four-point Likert scale: Strongly
Agree (SA), Agree (A), Disagree (D), and Strongly Disagree (SD), allowing participants to
express varying degrees of agreement without a neutral midpoint. (Likert, 1932). The survey
was structured into sections addressing perceived enhancement of language skills, pedagogical
benefits, and contextual constraints.
The qualitative component involves semi-structured interviews with five teachers, which
allow for deeper exploration of their instructional practices and professional reflections.
According to Creswell and Poth (2016), interviews constitute a powerful qualitative method for
capturing in-depth perceptions, emotional responses, and contextual dynamics that are often not
fully accessible through quantitative instruments alone. The interview protocol was organized
into three sections, each aligned with a research question. Section One focused on how teachers
applied the five stages of the Design Thinking process—Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype,
and Test—within their EFL teaching practices. Section Two explored teachers’ perceptions of
Design Thinking's impact on students’ language skills, including speaking, listening, reading,
writing, and vocabulary development. Section Three examined the perceived benefits and
experience with the approach under investigation (Coyne, 1997). Although the sample is not
statistically generalizable, it is theoretically relevant and appropriate for exploratory perception-
based research, as it provides informed insights from practitioners with firsthand experience in
applying Design Thinking within a public university EFL.
Participants
The participants of this study were university EFL teachers who taught blended B1 and
B1+ courses for more than 5 years. Each course consisted of 56 in-person instructional hours
and 56 hours of autonomous learning. The quantitative survey was administered to seven EFL
teachers (N=7) who met the inclusion criteria and had implemented the DT approach in their
courses during the last two semesters. Five of these seven teachers also participated in the
qualitative semi-structured interviews. The participants received training in Design Thinking
and had prior experience integrating DT stages into speaking and skills-based activities within
their regular teaching practice. To ensure confidentiality and anonymity, participants in this
study are identified using the label “T” (for teacher) followed by the initial letter of their last
name (e.g., T.M., T.G.).
Techniques and instruments to collect information
This study employed a combination of data collection tools, including surveys and
interviews, to systematically gather, analyze, and interpret data to address the research
questions. These instruments contributed to ensuring the study’s credibility, validity, and
reliability. The quantitative component consists of a Likert-scale survey designed to examine
the perceptions of seven EFL teachers (N=7) regarding the impact of Design Thinking on
students’ EFL skills, as well as the perceived benefits and challenges associated with its
implementation. The instrument included items measured on a four-point Likert scale: Strongly
Agree (SA), Agree (A), Disagree (D), and Strongly Disagree (SD), allowing participants to
express varying degrees of agreement without a neutral midpoint. (Likert, 1932). The survey
was structured into sections addressing perceived enhancement of language skills, pedagogical
benefits, and contextual constraints.
The qualitative component involves semi-structured interviews with five teachers, which
allow for deeper exploration of their instructional practices and professional reflections.
According to Creswell and Poth (2016), interviews constitute a powerful qualitative method for
capturing in-depth perceptions, emotional responses, and contextual dynamics that are often not
fully accessible through quantitative instruments alone. The interview protocol was organized
into three sections, each aligned with a research question. Section One focused on how teachers
applied the five stages of the Design Thinking process—Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype,
and Test—within their EFL teaching practices. Section Two explored teachers’ perceptions of
Design Thinking's impact on students’ language skills, including speaking, listening, reading,
writing, and vocabulary development. Section Three examined the perceived benefits and
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 366
challenges of integrating Design Thinking into the EFL curriculum, including autonomy,
engagement, professional growth, time constraints, and curriculum alignment. Data from both
strands were collected within the same research phase and later integrated during the
interpretation stage, which characterizes the study as a convergent mixed-methods design. This
methodological integration enhances the validity of the findings by triangulating numerical
trends with detailed experiential accounts.
The study followed ethical principles throughout the research process. Participants
provided informed consent, and confidentiality was ensured. All data collected were used
exclusively for research purposes. Participation was voluntary, and participants were informed
that they could withdraw at any time without any negative consequences. The study did not
interfere with regular class activities. All information was anonymized and securely stored on
password-protected devices accessible only to the research team to protect participants’ privacy
and well-being.
AI-Assisted Analysis
Artificial intelligence tools were used in a supporting capacity during the qualitative data
analysis phase of this study. Specifically, ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2024) was employed to assist with
the initial organization of interview transcripts, the identification of candidate themes, and the
generation of preliminary codes from the qualitative data. All AI-generated outputs were
subsequently reviewed, validated, and refined by the research team. Final thematic decisions,
interpretive judgments, and the selection of representative quotes were made exclusively by the
researchers, in accordance with established standards for qualitative inquiry (Creswell & Poth,
2016). The use of AI tools in this study was limited to organizational and analytical support; no
AI-generated text was incorporated into the findings or conclusions without researcher oversight
and verification.
Findings
A descriptive statistical analysis of the survey data was conducted to determine the
distribution of teachers’ perceptions regarding the impact of Design Thinking on EFL skills, as
well as the perceived benefits and challenges of its implementation. Frequencies and
percentages were calculated for each Likert-scale item to identify overall trends. Additionally,
the interview data were coded using AI-assisted tools and subsequently reviewed and analyzed
by the researchers to identify recurring themes, patterns, and meaningful insights aligned with
the research questions.
challenges of integrating Design Thinking into the EFL curriculum, including autonomy,
engagement, professional growth, time constraints, and curriculum alignment. Data from both
strands were collected within the same research phase and later integrated during the
interpretation stage, which characterizes the study as a convergent mixed-methods design. This
methodological integration enhances the validity of the findings by triangulating numerical
trends with detailed experiential accounts.
The study followed ethical principles throughout the research process. Participants
provided informed consent, and confidentiality was ensured. All data collected were used
exclusively for research purposes. Participation was voluntary, and participants were informed
that they could withdraw at any time without any negative consequences. The study did not
interfere with regular class activities. All information was anonymized and securely stored on
password-protected devices accessible only to the research team to protect participants’ privacy
and well-being.
AI-Assisted Analysis
Artificial intelligence tools were used in a supporting capacity during the qualitative data
analysis phase of this study. Specifically, ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2024) was employed to assist with
the initial organization of interview transcripts, the identification of candidate themes, and the
generation of preliminary codes from the qualitative data. All AI-generated outputs were
subsequently reviewed, validated, and refined by the research team. Final thematic decisions,
interpretive judgments, and the selection of representative quotes were made exclusively by the
researchers, in accordance with established standards for qualitative inquiry (Creswell & Poth,
2016). The use of AI tools in this study was limited to organizational and analytical support; no
AI-generated text was incorporated into the findings or conclusions without researcher oversight
and verification.
Findings
A descriptive statistical analysis of the survey data was conducted to determine the
distribution of teachers’ perceptions regarding the impact of Design Thinking on EFL skills, as
well as the perceived benefits and challenges of its implementation. Frequencies and
percentages were calculated for each Likert-scale item to identify overall trends. Additionally,
the interview data were coded using AI-assisted tools and subsequently reviewed and analyzed
by the researchers to identify recurring themes, patterns, and meaningful insights aligned with
the research questions.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 367
Quantitative Data
Table 1
Descriptive Statistical Analysis of survey section 1: Teachers’ perceptions of EFL Skill
Development when Implementing Design Thinking
Skills SA A D SD
Speaking, interaction, and comprehension 28.6% 71.4 % 0% 0%
Speaking fluency 28.6 % 71.4 % 0% 0%
Listening comprehension 14.3 % 85.7 % 0% 0%
Reading comprehension 14.3 % 85.7% 0% 0%
Writing after feedback loops 14.3 % 85.7 % 0% 0%
Organization, coherence, creativity 14.3 % 85.7% 0% 0%
Vocabulary use 14.3 % 71.4 % 14.3% 0%
Vocabulary retention 14.3 % 71.4% 14.3% 0%
Note: Elaborated by Mariscal, Castro, Reeves, Castillo, Govea.
The quantitative results presented in Table 1 suggest a high level of agreement among
participants within this limited sample regarding the impact of Design Thinking on students’
EFL skills development. The only exceptions were vocabulary use and vocabulary retention,
where a small proportion of participants expressed disagreement. Overall, these results suggest
that teachers perceive Design Thinking as a pedagogical approach that supports the
development of multiple language skills through collaborative, inquiry-based learning activities.
Previous studies have similarly reported that Design Thinking environments promote active
engagement, problem-solving, and communication in language learning contexts, contributing
to improvements across receptive and productive skills (Cleminson & Cowie, 2021; Kang,
2021).
Particularly notable were the results for speaking interaction, comprehension, and
fluency, which obtained the highest proportion of Strongly Agree responses (28.6%), with the
remaining 71.4% selecting Agree. These findings indicate that teachers perceive Design
Thinking as supporting the development of oral communication skills. This perception may be
explained by the collaborative and presentation-based nature of Design Thinking tasks, which
require students to discuss ideas, negotiate solutions, and present outcomes. Previous research
has highlighted that Design Thinking encourages communicative interaction, spontaneous
language use, and collaborative dialogue, which can contribute to improvements in speaking
fluency and communicative competence in EFL settings (Almalki, 2023; Cleminson & Cowie,
2021).
Although the overall results were positive, vocabulary use and vocabulary retention
showed slightly lower levels of agreement, with 86% of teachers indicating Strongly Agree or
Agree and 14.3% indicating Disagree. This difference may reflect the nature of vocabulary
Quantitative Data
Table 1
Descriptive Statistical Analysis of survey section 1: Teachers’ perceptions of EFL Skill
Development when Implementing Design Thinking
Skills SA A D SD
Speaking, interaction, and comprehension 28.6% 71.4 % 0% 0%
Speaking fluency 28.6 % 71.4 % 0% 0%
Listening comprehension 14.3 % 85.7 % 0% 0%
Reading comprehension 14.3 % 85.7% 0% 0%
Writing after feedback loops 14.3 % 85.7 % 0% 0%
Organization, coherence, creativity 14.3 % 85.7% 0% 0%
Vocabulary use 14.3 % 71.4 % 14.3% 0%
Vocabulary retention 14.3 % 71.4% 14.3% 0%
Note: Elaborated by Mariscal, Castro, Reeves, Castillo, Govea.
The quantitative results presented in Table 1 suggest a high level of agreement among
participants within this limited sample regarding the impact of Design Thinking on students’
EFL skills development. The only exceptions were vocabulary use and vocabulary retention,
where a small proportion of participants expressed disagreement. Overall, these results suggest
that teachers perceive Design Thinking as a pedagogical approach that supports the
development of multiple language skills through collaborative, inquiry-based learning activities.
Previous studies have similarly reported that Design Thinking environments promote active
engagement, problem-solving, and communication in language learning contexts, contributing
to improvements across receptive and productive skills (Cleminson & Cowie, 2021; Kang,
2021).
Particularly notable were the results for speaking interaction, comprehension, and
fluency, which obtained the highest proportion of Strongly Agree responses (28.6%), with the
remaining 71.4% selecting Agree. These findings indicate that teachers perceive Design
Thinking as supporting the development of oral communication skills. This perception may be
explained by the collaborative and presentation-based nature of Design Thinking tasks, which
require students to discuss ideas, negotiate solutions, and present outcomes. Previous research
has highlighted that Design Thinking encourages communicative interaction, spontaneous
language use, and collaborative dialogue, which can contribute to improvements in speaking
fluency and communicative competence in EFL settings (Almalki, 2023; Cleminson & Cowie,
2021).
Although the overall results were positive, vocabulary use and vocabulary retention
showed slightly lower levels of agreement, with 86% of teachers indicating Strongly Agree or
Agree and 14.3% indicating Disagree. This difference may reflect the nature of vocabulary
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 368
acquisition, which often requires extended exposure, repetition, and reinforcement over longer
instructional periods. While Design Thinking activities promote contextualized language use
and problem-solving communication, the consolidation of vocabulary knowledge may depend
on sustained practice across multiple learning cycles. Previous studies have suggested that
vocabulary development in project-based or design-oriented learning environments occurs
progressively as learners repeatedly apply new language during inquiry and collaborative tasks
(Nazim & Mohammad, 2022; Weganofa et al., 2024). Therefore, the slightly lower agreement
may indicate that some teachers perceive vocabulary retention as requiring longer-term
instructional reinforcement beyond the timeframe of a single Design Thinking project.
Table 2
Descriptive Statistical Analysis of survey section 2: Teachers’ perceptions of Benefits when
integrating DT into the EFL curriculum when implementing DT
Benefits SA A D SD
Increased motivation and participation 42.9 % 57.1 % 0% 0 %
Increased confidence in English use 42.9 % 57.1 % 0% 0 %
Enhanced critical and creative thinking 42.9 % 57.1% 0% 0 %
More innovative lesson design 42.9 % 57.1 % 0% 0 %
More cooperative and respectful 28.6 % 71.4 % 0% 0 %
Understanding others’ perspectives 28.6 % 71.4 % 0% 0 %
Greater ownership and autonomy 28.6 % 71.4 % 0% 0 %
Improved lesson planning 28.6 % 71.4 % 0% 0 %
Greater student-centered focus 28.6 % 71.4 % 0% 0 %
Increased professional reflection 28.6 % 71.4 % 0% 0 %
Better understanding of learners’ needs 28.6 % 71.4% 0% 0 %|
Note: Elaborated by Mariscal, Castro, Reeves, Castillo, Govea.
The results presented in Table 2 indicate strong agreement among teachers regarding the
benefits of implementing Design Thinking in EFL classrooms. Across all survey statements,
most of them selected either Strongly Agree or Agree, reflecting highly positive perceptions of
the pedagogical value of this approach. These findings suggest that participants in this study
perceive Design Thinking as a methodology that promotes active learning, engagement, and
innovation in language teaching. Previous research has similarly highlighted that Design
Thinking encourages collaborative inquiry, learner-centered instruction, and meaningful
participation in classroom activities (Cleminson & Cowie, 2021; Kang, 2021).
One of the most highly rated benefits was increased motivation and participation, which
obtained 94.0% agreement. Similarly, confidence in English use reached 93.9% agreement.
acquisition, which often requires extended exposure, repetition, and reinforcement over longer
instructional periods. While Design Thinking activities promote contextualized language use
and problem-solving communication, the consolidation of vocabulary knowledge may depend
on sustained practice across multiple learning cycles. Previous studies have suggested that
vocabulary development in project-based or design-oriented learning environments occurs
progressively as learners repeatedly apply new language during inquiry and collaborative tasks
(Nazim & Mohammad, 2022; Weganofa et al., 2024). Therefore, the slightly lower agreement
may indicate that some teachers perceive vocabulary retention as requiring longer-term
instructional reinforcement beyond the timeframe of a single Design Thinking project.
Table 2
Descriptive Statistical Analysis of survey section 2: Teachers’ perceptions of Benefits when
integrating DT into the EFL curriculum when implementing DT
Benefits SA A D SD
Increased motivation and participation 42.9 % 57.1 % 0% 0 %
Increased confidence in English use 42.9 % 57.1 % 0% 0 %
Enhanced critical and creative thinking 42.9 % 57.1% 0% 0 %
More innovative lesson design 42.9 % 57.1 % 0% 0 %
More cooperative and respectful 28.6 % 71.4 % 0% 0 %
Understanding others’ perspectives 28.6 % 71.4 % 0% 0 %
Greater ownership and autonomy 28.6 % 71.4 % 0% 0 %
Improved lesson planning 28.6 % 71.4 % 0% 0 %
Greater student-centered focus 28.6 % 71.4 % 0% 0 %
Increased professional reflection 28.6 % 71.4 % 0% 0 %
Better understanding of learners’ needs 28.6 % 71.4% 0% 0 %|
Note: Elaborated by Mariscal, Castro, Reeves, Castillo, Govea.
The results presented in Table 2 indicate strong agreement among teachers regarding the
benefits of implementing Design Thinking in EFL classrooms. Across all survey statements,
most of them selected either Strongly Agree or Agree, reflecting highly positive perceptions of
the pedagogical value of this approach. These findings suggest that participants in this study
perceive Design Thinking as a methodology that promotes active learning, engagement, and
innovation in language teaching. Previous research has similarly highlighted that Design
Thinking encourages collaborative inquiry, learner-centered instruction, and meaningful
participation in classroom activities (Cleminson & Cowie, 2021; Kang, 2021).
One of the most highly rated benefits was increased motivation and participation, which
obtained 94.0% agreement. Similarly, confidence in English use reached 93.9% agreement.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 369
These results suggest that teachers perceive Design Thinking activities as fostering
communicative environments in which students feel more engaged and willing to participate.
The collaborative, problem-solving nature of DT tasks may encourage students to take risks
with the language and to actively contribute during discussions and presentations. Previous
studies have reported that design-oriented learning environments can increase learner
motivation and communicative confidence by promoting authentic interaction and collaborative
problem solving (Swallow & Tomalin, 2024; Almalki, 2023).
Another highly valued outcome was the development of enhanced critical and creative
thinking, which obtained 93.9% agreement, along with more innovative lesson design (93.9%).
These findings indicate that teachers perceive Design Thinking as fostering higher-order
thinking skills while simultaneously influencing pedagogical practices. By engaging students in
processes such as problem identification, idea generation, and solution design, the approach
encourages analytical reasoning and creativity. Previous research has maintained that DT
supports innovation and creativity in educational contexts by promoting structured ideation,
experimentation, and reflective problem-solving (Baum, 2021; Baričević & Luić, 2023).
Table 3
Descriptive Statistical Analysis of survey section 3: Teachers’ perceptions of challenges when
integrating DT into the EFL curriculum when implementing DT
Challenges SA A D SD
Integration into the existing curriculum requires extra effort 14.3 % 71.4 % 14.3 % 0 %
Managing a large number of students 14.3 % 42.9 % 42.9 % 0 %
Limited time to carry out DT stages 0 % 42.9 % 57.1 % 0 %
Student comprehension of phases is challenging 0 % 42.9 % 57.1 % 0 %
Low student motivation hinders tasks 0 % 42.9 % 57.1% 0 %
Students resistant to traditional mindset change 0 % 42.9 % 57.1 % 0 %
Collaboration and teamwork dynamics are challenging 0 % 42.9 % 57.1 % 0 %
Limited access to technology interferes 0 % 42.9 % 57.1 % 0 %
Adapting DT to different learning styles is difficult 0 % 42.9 % 57.1 % 0 %
Lack of resources limits creativity 0 % 28.6 % 71.4 % 0 %
Note: Elaborated by Mariscal, Castro, Reeves, Castillo, Govea.
The results presented in Table 3 indicate that teachers perceive several challenges when
implementing Design Thinking (DT) in EFL classrooms. One of the most notable concerns
relates to the effort required to incorporate this methodology into existing instructional
structures. Specifically, 85.7% of teachers (14.3% strongly agree; 71.4% agree) indicated that
integrating DT into the existing curriculum requires extra effort, suggesting that implementing
DT often demands additional planning, adaptation of course objectives, and restructuring of
learning activities. Previous research has similarly reported that integrating Design Thinking
These results suggest that teachers perceive Design Thinking activities as fostering
communicative environments in which students feel more engaged and willing to participate.
The collaborative, problem-solving nature of DT tasks may encourage students to take risks
with the language and to actively contribute during discussions and presentations. Previous
studies have reported that design-oriented learning environments can increase learner
motivation and communicative confidence by promoting authentic interaction and collaborative
problem solving (Swallow & Tomalin, 2024; Almalki, 2023).
Another highly valued outcome was the development of enhanced critical and creative
thinking, which obtained 93.9% agreement, along with more innovative lesson design (93.9%).
These findings indicate that teachers perceive Design Thinking as fostering higher-order
thinking skills while simultaneously influencing pedagogical practices. By engaging students in
processes such as problem identification, idea generation, and solution design, the approach
encourages analytical reasoning and creativity. Previous research has maintained that DT
supports innovation and creativity in educational contexts by promoting structured ideation,
experimentation, and reflective problem-solving (Baum, 2021; Baričević & Luić, 2023).
Table 3
Descriptive Statistical Analysis of survey section 3: Teachers’ perceptions of challenges when
integrating DT into the EFL curriculum when implementing DT
Challenges SA A D SD
Integration into the existing curriculum requires extra effort 14.3 % 71.4 % 14.3 % 0 %
Managing a large number of students 14.3 % 42.9 % 42.9 % 0 %
Limited time to carry out DT stages 0 % 42.9 % 57.1 % 0 %
Student comprehension of phases is challenging 0 % 42.9 % 57.1 % 0 %
Low student motivation hinders tasks 0 % 42.9 % 57.1% 0 %
Students resistant to traditional mindset change 0 % 42.9 % 57.1 % 0 %
Collaboration and teamwork dynamics are challenging 0 % 42.9 % 57.1 % 0 %
Limited access to technology interferes 0 % 42.9 % 57.1 % 0 %
Adapting DT to different learning styles is difficult 0 % 42.9 % 57.1 % 0 %
Lack of resources limits creativity 0 % 28.6 % 71.4 % 0 %
Note: Elaborated by Mariscal, Castro, Reeves, Castillo, Govea.
The results presented in Table 3 indicate that teachers perceive several challenges when
implementing Design Thinking (DT) in EFL classrooms. One of the most notable concerns
relates to the effort required to incorporate this methodology into existing instructional
structures. Specifically, 85.7% of teachers (14.3% strongly agree; 71.4% agree) indicated that
integrating DT into the existing curriculum requires extra effort, suggesting that implementing
DT often demands additional planning, adaptation of course objectives, and restructuring of
learning activities. Previous research has similarly reported that integrating Design Thinking
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 370
into educational settings requires curricular adjustments and instructional redesign to align
innovative methodologies with institutional requirements (Shé et al., 2022; Wang, 2024). These
findings suggest that while teachers recognize the pedagogical value of DT, they also
acknowledge the additional preparation required to successfully integrate it into EFL courses.
Another challenge identified by teachers relates to managing large numbers of students
during DT activities, with 57.2% of teachers (14.3% strongly agree; 42.9% agree) perceiving
this as a potential difficulty. Design Thinking typically involves collaborative problem-solving,
group discussions, and iterative activities that require the instructor's active facilitation. In larger
classrooms, coordinating teamwork, monitoring group interactions, and providing feedback may
become more complex. Previous studies have noted that while DT promotes collaborative
learning and communication, classroom management can become more demanding in large-
group contexts where teachers must balance facilitation with instructional guidance (Cleminson
& Cowie, 2021; Lake et al., 2024). These findings suggest that class size may affect how easily
teachers can implement interactive DT activities.
Finally, several potential challenges received 42.9% agreement, including limited time to
carry out DT stages, student comprehension of DT phases, low student motivation, resistance to
traditional mindset change, collaboration dynamics, limited access to technology, and adapting
DT to different learning styles. These results suggest that although some teachers recognize
these issues as challenges, the majority did not perceive them as major barriers. Interestingly,
teachers generally did not consider lack of resources a significant limitation, as 71.4% disagreed
with the statement that lack of resources limits creativity. This perception aligns with research
suggesting that Design Thinking develops creativity, problem-solving, and flexible use of
available materials rather than dependence on technological or material resources (Sotlikova,
2023; Swallow & Tomalin, 2024). Therefore, teachers may perceive DT as a methodology that
can still be effectively implemented even in resource-constrained educational contexts.
Qualitative data analysis
The table below comprises the teachers’ insights shared during the interview. The data
were organized and classified into six themes that captured their perceptions after 10 weeks of
Design Thinking implementation. The themes were: (1) Fluency and Confidence, (2)
Motivation and engagement, (3) Cognitive structuring, (4) Feedback and Reflection, (5) skills
developed beyond English, and (6) Challenges and resolutions.
into educational settings requires curricular adjustments and instructional redesign to align
innovative methodologies with institutional requirements (Shé et al., 2022; Wang, 2024). These
findings suggest that while teachers recognize the pedagogical value of DT, they also
acknowledge the additional preparation required to successfully integrate it into EFL courses.
Another challenge identified by teachers relates to managing large numbers of students
during DT activities, with 57.2% of teachers (14.3% strongly agree; 42.9% agree) perceiving
this as a potential difficulty. Design Thinking typically involves collaborative problem-solving,
group discussions, and iterative activities that require the instructor's active facilitation. In larger
classrooms, coordinating teamwork, monitoring group interactions, and providing feedback may
become more complex. Previous studies have noted that while DT promotes collaborative
learning and communication, classroom management can become more demanding in large-
group contexts where teachers must balance facilitation with instructional guidance (Cleminson
& Cowie, 2021; Lake et al., 2024). These findings suggest that class size may affect how easily
teachers can implement interactive DT activities.
Finally, several potential challenges received 42.9% agreement, including limited time to
carry out DT stages, student comprehension of DT phases, low student motivation, resistance to
traditional mindset change, collaboration dynamics, limited access to technology, and adapting
DT to different learning styles. These results suggest that although some teachers recognize
these issues as challenges, the majority did not perceive them as major barriers. Interestingly,
teachers generally did not consider lack of resources a significant limitation, as 71.4% disagreed
with the statement that lack of resources limits creativity. This perception aligns with research
suggesting that Design Thinking develops creativity, problem-solving, and flexible use of
available materials rather than dependence on technological or material resources (Sotlikova,
2023; Swallow & Tomalin, 2024). Therefore, teachers may perceive DT as a methodology that
can still be effectively implemented even in resource-constrained educational contexts.
Qualitative data analysis
The table below comprises the teachers’ insights shared during the interview. The data
were organized and classified into six themes that captured their perceptions after 10 weeks of
Design Thinking implementation. The themes were: (1) Fluency and Confidence, (2)
Motivation and engagement, (3) Cognitive structuring, (4) Feedback and Reflection, (5) skills
developed beyond English, and (6) Challenges and resolutions.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 371
Table 4
Theme and Codification of interview transcripts – Perceptions of benefits and challenges when
integrating DT into the EFL curriculum
Theme Subtheme Code Representative Quotes Survey Support
Application of
DT
Empathize
Stage
Research-
based data
collection
“Students conducted
interviews and surveys.” (TL)
“Students engaged in
secondary research.” (TM)
Better
understanding of
learners’ needs:
100% agreement
Active
listening &
needs analysis
“Students practiced active
listening during interviews.”
(TA) “Reflective discussions
identified communication
challenges.” (TC)
Listening
improvement: High
agreement
Contextualized
problem
awareness
“Students developed a deeper
understanding of peers’
needs.” (TM) “Empathize
grounded the project in
authentic contexts.” (TL)
Reading & listening
comprehension:
High agreement
Define Stage
Problem
framing &
clarification
“Students narrowed broad
topics into clear problem
statements.” (TAI)
Writing
organization
improvement: High
agreement
POV
statement
construction
“Students constructed a Point
of View statement.” (TM)
“Define strengthens
coherence.” (TC)
Writing coherence:
100% agreement
Ideate Stage
Collaborative
brainstorming
“Students generated multiple
solutions.” (TC) “Group
brainstorming increased
interaction.” (TAI)
Creative thinking:
100% agreement
Strategic
evaluation
(difficulty–
impact matrix)
“Students evaluated ideas
using the difficulty–impact
matrix.” (TM)
Critical thinking:
100% agreement
Risk-taking &
spontaneous
language use
“The Ideate stage reduced
fear and encouraged risk-
taking.” (TM) “Students
relied less on memorization.”
(TC)
Speaking fluency:
High agreement
Prototype
Stage
Drafting &
rehearsal
process
“Students created draft
presentations and rehearsed.”
(TA)
Speaking fluency
improvement: High
agreement
Structured
feedback
application
“Prototypes were evaluated
using likes, critiques, doubts,
suggestions.” (TL)
Speaking
confidence: 100%
agreement
Test Stage
Iterative
revision &
refinement
“Students refined solutions
after peer feedback.” (TM)
Fluency &
confidence
improvement: High
agreement
Reflective
self-evaluation
“Peer assessment reinforced
self-reflection.” (TC)
Professional
reflection: 100%
agreement
Table 4
Theme and Codification of interview transcripts – Perceptions of benefits and challenges when
integrating DT into the EFL curriculum
Theme Subtheme Code Representative Quotes Survey Support
Application of
DT
Empathize
Stage
Research-
based data
collection
“Students conducted
interviews and surveys.” (TL)
“Students engaged in
secondary research.” (TM)
Better
understanding of
learners’ needs:
100% agreement
Active
listening &
needs analysis
“Students practiced active
listening during interviews.”
(TA) “Reflective discussions
identified communication
challenges.” (TC)
Listening
improvement: High
agreement
Contextualized
problem
awareness
“Students developed a deeper
understanding of peers’
needs.” (TM) “Empathize
grounded the project in
authentic contexts.” (TL)
Reading & listening
comprehension:
High agreement
Define Stage
Problem
framing &
clarification
“Students narrowed broad
topics into clear problem
statements.” (TAI)
Writing
organization
improvement: High
agreement
POV
statement
construction
“Students constructed a Point
of View statement.” (TM)
“Define strengthens
coherence.” (TC)
Writing coherence:
100% agreement
Ideate Stage
Collaborative
brainstorming
“Students generated multiple
solutions.” (TC) “Group
brainstorming increased
interaction.” (TAI)
Creative thinking:
100% agreement
Strategic
evaluation
(difficulty–
impact matrix)
“Students evaluated ideas
using the difficulty–impact
matrix.” (TM)
Critical thinking:
100% agreement
Risk-taking &
spontaneous
language use
“The Ideate stage reduced
fear and encouraged risk-
taking.” (TM) “Students
relied less on memorization.”
(TC)
Speaking fluency:
High agreement
Prototype
Stage
Drafting &
rehearsal
process
“Students created draft
presentations and rehearsed.”
(TA)
Speaking fluency
improvement: High
agreement
Structured
feedback
application
“Prototypes were evaluated
using likes, critiques, doubts,
suggestions.” (TL)
Speaking
confidence: 100%
agreement
Test Stage
Iterative
revision &
refinement
“Students refined solutions
after peer feedback.” (TM)
Fluency &
confidence
improvement: High
agreement
Reflective
self-evaluation
“Peer assessment reinforced
self-reflection.” (TC)
Professional
reflection: 100%
agreement
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 372
EFL Skills
Enhancement
Speaking
Fluency
Reduced
hesitation &
spontaneous
speech
“Students reduced long
pauses, relied less on
memorization, and
communicated more
spontaneously.” (TL)
“Speaking fluency has
noticeably increased.” (TAL)
“Students demonstrate
increased confidence and
reduced hesitation when
speaking.” (TC)
Speaking fluency:
100% agreement
(28.6% SA; 71.4%
A)
Speaking
Confidence
Public
speaking
security
“Students lost fear of speaking
and developed public speaking
security.” (TM) “Their
confidence has increased
noticeably.” (TA)
Confidence in
English use: 100%
agreement (42.9%
SA)
Listening
Comprehension
Active
listening
development
“Listening improved through
interviews and peer
feedback.” (TL) “Students
must actively listen during
brainstorming and feedback
sessions.” (TAL)
Listening
comprehension:
100% agreement
Writing
Development
Coherence &
revision loops
“Writing improved due to
data analysis and structured
revision cycles.” (TL)
“Writing shows significant
improvement in coherence and
logical organization.” (TC)
Writing
improvement:
100% agreement
Reading
Comprehension
Research-
based learning
“Reading improved as
students analyzed academic
articles during the Empathize
stage.” (TL) “Students
demonstrate better
comprehension when they
research and synthesize
content.” (TC)
Reading
comprehension:
100% agreement
Vocabulary
Development
Lexical
expansion
through
problem-
solving
“Students expanded
vocabulary through research
and repeated application
across stages.” (TM)
“Students use more varied
vocabulary during
presentations.” (TAL)
Vocabulary use:
85.7% agreement
Vocabulary
retention: 85.7%
agreement
Student-
Centered
Learning &
Autonomy
Ownership of
Learning
Learner
responsibility
“Students take responsibility
for generating ideas and
solving problems.” (TA)
“Students become
researchers, analysts,
designers, and presenters.”
(TM)
Ownership &
autonomy: 100%
agreement
Student-
Centered Focus
Teacher as
facilitator
“The teacher acts as a
facilitator rather than a
lecturer.” (TL) “Students are
responsible for generating
ideas and reflecting on
Student-centered
focus: 100%
agreement
EFL Skills
Enhancement
Speaking
Fluency
Reduced
hesitation &
spontaneous
speech
“Students reduced long
pauses, relied less on
memorization, and
communicated more
spontaneously.” (TL)
“Speaking fluency has
noticeably increased.” (TAL)
“Students demonstrate
increased confidence and
reduced hesitation when
speaking.” (TC)
Speaking fluency:
100% agreement
(28.6% SA; 71.4%
A)
Speaking
Confidence
Public
speaking
security
“Students lost fear of speaking
and developed public speaking
security.” (TM) “Their
confidence has increased
noticeably.” (TA)
Confidence in
English use: 100%
agreement (42.9%
SA)
Listening
Comprehension
Active
listening
development
“Listening improved through
interviews and peer
feedback.” (TL) “Students
must actively listen during
brainstorming and feedback
sessions.” (TAL)
Listening
comprehension:
100% agreement
Writing
Development
Coherence &
revision loops
“Writing improved due to
data analysis and structured
revision cycles.” (TL)
“Writing shows significant
improvement in coherence and
logical organization.” (TC)
Writing
improvement:
100% agreement
Reading
Comprehension
Research-
based learning
“Reading improved as
students analyzed academic
articles during the Empathize
stage.” (TL) “Students
demonstrate better
comprehension when they
research and synthesize
content.” (TC)
Reading
comprehension:
100% agreement
Vocabulary
Development
Lexical
expansion
through
problem-
solving
“Students expanded
vocabulary through research
and repeated application
across stages.” (TM)
“Students use more varied
vocabulary during
presentations.” (TAL)
Vocabulary use:
85.7% agreement
Vocabulary
retention: 85.7%
agreement
Student-
Centered
Learning &
Autonomy
Ownership of
Learning
Learner
responsibility
“Students take responsibility
for generating ideas and
solving problems.” (TA)
“Students become
researchers, analysts,
designers, and presenters.”
(TM)
Ownership &
autonomy: 100%
agreement
Student-
Centered Focus
Teacher as
facilitator
“The teacher acts as a
facilitator rather than a
lecturer.” (TL) “Students are
responsible for generating
ideas and reflecting on
Student-centered
focus: 100%
agreement
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 373
performance.” (TC)
Reflection Iterative self-
evaluation
“Peer assessment and
reflection strengthened self-
evaluation.” (TL) “I now
emphasize iterative learning
and student autonomy.” (TC)
Professional
reflection: 100%
agreement
Motivation &
Confidence
Increased
Participation
Active
engagement
“The level of student
engagement and participation
has significantly increased.”
(TAL) “I observed increased
motivation and engagement.”
(TM)
Motivation: 100%
agreement (42.9%
SA)
Reduced
Anxiety
Growth
mindset
“Students are less afraid of
making mistakes.” (TC) “The
Ideate stage reduced fear and
encouraged risk-taking.”
(TM)
Confidence in
English use: 100%
agreement
Higher-Order
Thinking
Critical
Thinking
Strategic
evaluation
“The difficulty–impact matrix
strengthened analytical
reasoning.” (TM) “Students
evaluate options and justify
solutions in English.” (TA)
Critical & creative
thinking: 100%
agreement
Creativity Idea
generation
“Students generate multiple
solutions and negotiate
ideas.” (TC) “More
innovative lesson dynamics.”
(TAL)
Creative thinking:
100% agreement
Problem-
Solving
Structured
solution
design
“Students refined their
solutions through multiple
iterations.” (TL) “Problem-
solving tasks enhanced
decision-making skills.” (TM)
Problem-solving
perception: 100%
agreement
Professional
Development
Innovative
Lesson Design
Problem-based
restructuring
“My lesson planning now
integrates structured stages
and feedback cycles.” (TL) “I
now design more innovative
and engaging lessons.” (TAL)
Innovative lesson
design: 100%
agreement
Improved
Planning
Structured
planning
“Lesson planning now follows
a structured cycle.” (TM) “My
planning has become more
intentional.” (TA)
Improved planning:
100% agreement
Implementation
Challenges
Time
Constraints
Limited time
for full cycle
“The main limitation was
limited instructional time.”
(TL) “Integrating all stages
requires more preparation
time.” (TAL)
Time limitation:
57.1% agree
Curriculum
Integration
Extra planning
effort
“Integrating all stages within
limited class time requires
careful planning.” (TC)
“Integrating DT into the
existing curriculum requires
extra effort.” (Survey)
Curriculum
integration: 85.7%
agreement
performance.” (TC)
Reflection Iterative self-
evaluation
“Peer assessment and
reflection strengthened self-
evaluation.” (TL) “I now
emphasize iterative learning
and student autonomy.” (TC)
Professional
reflection: 100%
agreement
Motivation &
Confidence
Increased
Participation
Active
engagement
“The level of student
engagement and participation
has significantly increased.”
(TAL) “I observed increased
motivation and engagement.”
(TM)
Motivation: 100%
agreement (42.9%
SA)
Reduced
Anxiety
Growth
mindset
“Students are less afraid of
making mistakes.” (TC) “The
Ideate stage reduced fear and
encouraged risk-taking.”
(TM)
Confidence in
English use: 100%
agreement
Higher-Order
Thinking
Critical
Thinking
Strategic
evaluation
“The difficulty–impact matrix
strengthened analytical
reasoning.” (TM) “Students
evaluate options and justify
solutions in English.” (TA)
Critical & creative
thinking: 100%
agreement
Creativity Idea
generation
“Students generate multiple
solutions and negotiate
ideas.” (TC) “More
innovative lesson dynamics.”
(TAL)
Creative thinking:
100% agreement
Problem-
Solving
Structured
solution
design
“Students refined their
solutions through multiple
iterations.” (TL) “Problem-
solving tasks enhanced
decision-making skills.” (TM)
Problem-solving
perception: 100%
agreement
Professional
Development
Innovative
Lesson Design
Problem-based
restructuring
“My lesson planning now
integrates structured stages
and feedback cycles.” (TL) “I
now design more innovative
and engaging lessons.” (TAL)
Innovative lesson
design: 100%
agreement
Improved
Planning
Structured
planning
“Lesson planning now follows
a structured cycle.” (TM) “My
planning has become more
intentional.” (TA)
Improved planning:
100% agreement
Implementation
Challenges
Time
Constraints
Limited time
for full cycle
“The main limitation was
limited instructional time.”
(TL) “Integrating all stages
requires more preparation
time.” (TAL)
Time limitation:
57.1% agree
Curriculum
Integration
Extra planning
effort
“Integrating all stages within
limited class time requires
careful planning.” (TC)
“Integrating DT into the
existing curriculum requires
extra effort.” (Survey)
Curriculum
integration: 85.7%
agreement
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 374
Classroom
Management
Large group
dynamics
“Managing large groups can
be challenging.” (TC)
Large class
management:
57.2% report
difficulty
Note. The codification process was supported by artificial intelligence (AI), which assisted the researcher in
identifying themes, generating codes, and organizing representative quotes. It was followed by researcher validation.
The researcher made final interpretations and thematic decisions in accordance with qualitative analysis standards.
Table 4 presents the qualitative interview data organized into six major themes related
to Ecuadorian university teachers’ perceptions of implementing the Design Thinking approach
in EFL classrooms. These themes include EFL Skills Enhancement, Student-Centered Learning
and Autonomy, Motivation and Confidence, Higher-Order Thinking, Professional
Development, and Implementation Challenges.
The qualitative analysis begins with the theme EFL Skills Enhancement, which captures
teachers’ perceptions regarding improvements in students’ language abilities during the
implementation of Design Thinking in EFL classrooms. This theme includes several subthemes
that reflect key areas of language development: Speaking Fluency, Speaking Confidence,
Listening Comprehension, Writing Development, Reading Comprehension, and Vocabulary
Development. Together, these subthemes illustrate how Design Thinking activities may
contribute to both productive and receptive language skills. The findings suggest that teachers
perceive the methodology as fostering communicative interaction, research-based learning, and
iterative feedback processes that support language development throughout the different stages
of the Design Thinking cycle. Previous studies have similarly reported that Design Thinking
promotes integrated language learning through collaborative inquiry and authentic problem-
solving tasks in EFL contexts (Cleminson & Cowie, 2021; Kang, 2021; Mujino et al, 2022)
Particularly notable were perceptions of speaking fluency and speaking confidence,
which emerged as central outcomes of Design Thinking activities. Interview data revealed that
students demonstrated greater spontaneity and reduced hesitation when speaking in English. As
one teacher explained, “students reduced long pauses, relied less on memorization, and
communicated more spontaneously” (TS), while another observed that “speaking fluency has
noticeably increased” (TAL). Similarly, teachers assert that students developed greater
confidence when presenting their ideas, with one participant noting that “students lost fear of
speaking and developed public speaking security” (TM). These qualitative insights align with
the survey findings, which show that speaking interaction, comprehension, and fluency reached
100% agreement (28.6% strongly agree; 71.4% agree). These findings suggest that participants
in this study perceived improvements in students’ oral communication abilities during Design
Thinking activities, within the limits of this small sample. This perception may be associated
with the communicative and collaborative nature of Design Thinking tasks. These results are
consistent with previous research suggesting that Design Thinking encourages communicative
Classroom
Management
Large group
dynamics
“Managing large groups can
be challenging.” (TC)
Large class
management:
57.2% report
difficulty
Note. The codification process was supported by artificial intelligence (AI), which assisted the researcher in
identifying themes, generating codes, and organizing representative quotes. It was followed by researcher validation.
The researcher made final interpretations and thematic decisions in accordance with qualitative analysis standards.
Table 4 presents the qualitative interview data organized into six major themes related
to Ecuadorian university teachers’ perceptions of implementing the Design Thinking approach
in EFL classrooms. These themes include EFL Skills Enhancement, Student-Centered Learning
and Autonomy, Motivation and Confidence, Higher-Order Thinking, Professional
Development, and Implementation Challenges.
The qualitative analysis begins with the theme EFL Skills Enhancement, which captures
teachers’ perceptions regarding improvements in students’ language abilities during the
implementation of Design Thinking in EFL classrooms. This theme includes several subthemes
that reflect key areas of language development: Speaking Fluency, Speaking Confidence,
Listening Comprehension, Writing Development, Reading Comprehension, and Vocabulary
Development. Together, these subthemes illustrate how Design Thinking activities may
contribute to both productive and receptive language skills. The findings suggest that teachers
perceive the methodology as fostering communicative interaction, research-based learning, and
iterative feedback processes that support language development throughout the different stages
of the Design Thinking cycle. Previous studies have similarly reported that Design Thinking
promotes integrated language learning through collaborative inquiry and authentic problem-
solving tasks in EFL contexts (Cleminson & Cowie, 2021; Kang, 2021; Mujino et al, 2022)
Particularly notable were perceptions of speaking fluency and speaking confidence,
which emerged as central outcomes of Design Thinking activities. Interview data revealed that
students demonstrated greater spontaneity and reduced hesitation when speaking in English. As
one teacher explained, “students reduced long pauses, relied less on memorization, and
communicated more spontaneously” (TS), while another observed that “speaking fluency has
noticeably increased” (TAL). Similarly, teachers assert that students developed greater
confidence when presenting their ideas, with one participant noting that “students lost fear of
speaking and developed public speaking security” (TM). These qualitative insights align with
the survey findings, which show that speaking interaction, comprehension, and fluency reached
100% agreement (28.6% strongly agree; 71.4% agree). These findings suggest that participants
in this study perceived improvements in students’ oral communication abilities during Design
Thinking activities, within the limits of this small sample. This perception may be associated
with the communicative and collaborative nature of Design Thinking tasks. These results are
consistent with previous research suggesting that Design Thinking encourages communicative
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 375
interaction and oral engagement through collaborative ideation, presentations, and iterative
discussions (Almalki, 2023; Cleminson & Cowie, 2021).
In addition to oral communication, teachers also reported improvements in other
language skills, including listening, reading, writing, and vocabulary development. Interview
participants explained that their listening skills were strengthened through activities such as
interviews, brainstorming sessions, and peer feedback. For example, one teacher noted that
“listening improved through interviews and peer feedback” (TL), while another stated that
“students must actively listen during brainstorming and feedback sessions” (TA). Similarly,
teachers perceived improvements in reading comprehension when students analyzed academic
sources during the Empathize stage and synthesized information for problem-solving tasks.
Writing development was also associated with iterative revision processes, as teachers observed
that “writing improved due to data analysis and structured revision cycles” (TL). Vocabulary
development showed slightly lower—but still strong—agreement in the survey (85.7%
agreement for vocabulary use and retention), which teachers attributed to repeated exposure and
contextualized language use across the different Design Thinking stages. These findings align
with studies indicating that Design Thinking can enhance reading, writing, and vocabulary
development through inquiry-based learning, research activities, and iterative feedback
processes in EFL classrooms (Afifi, 2023; Mujino et al., 2024; Gantsetseg & Oyun-Erdene,
2025)
The qualitative analysis also explores the theme Student-Centered Learning and
Autonomy, which reflects teachers’ perceptions of how Design Thinking shifts classroom
dynamics toward more learner-driven processes. This theme includes three main subthemes:
Ownership of Learning, Student-Centered Focus, and Reflection. Together, these dimensions
highlight how the Design Thinking approach encourages students to take a more active role in
the learning process while redefining the teacher’s role as a facilitator. Previous research has
pointed out that Design Thinking promotes learner-centered environments where students
engage in inquiry, collaboration, and problem-solving while teachers guide the process rather
than deliver content directly (Cleminson & Cowie, 2021; Kang, 2021; Shé et al., 2022). The
survey results strongly support these perceptions, showing 100% agreement across these
dimensions, including ownership and autonomy (28.6% strongly agree; 71.4% agree), student-
centered focus (28.6% strongly agree; 71.4% agree), and professional reflection (28.6% strongly
agree; 71.4% agree).
One of the most prominent aspects of this theme is ownership of learning, where
teachers observed that students became more responsible for generating ideas and developing
solutions throughout the Design Thinking process. Interview data indicate that students actively
assumed roles typically associated with inquiry-based learning. For example, one teacher
explained that “students take responsibility for generating ideas and solving problems” (TA),
interaction and oral engagement through collaborative ideation, presentations, and iterative
discussions (Almalki, 2023; Cleminson & Cowie, 2021).
In addition to oral communication, teachers also reported improvements in other
language skills, including listening, reading, writing, and vocabulary development. Interview
participants explained that their listening skills were strengthened through activities such as
interviews, brainstorming sessions, and peer feedback. For example, one teacher noted that
“listening improved through interviews and peer feedback” (TL), while another stated that
“students must actively listen during brainstorming and feedback sessions” (TA). Similarly,
teachers perceived improvements in reading comprehension when students analyzed academic
sources during the Empathize stage and synthesized information for problem-solving tasks.
Writing development was also associated with iterative revision processes, as teachers observed
that “writing improved due to data analysis and structured revision cycles” (TL). Vocabulary
development showed slightly lower—but still strong—agreement in the survey (85.7%
agreement for vocabulary use and retention), which teachers attributed to repeated exposure and
contextualized language use across the different Design Thinking stages. These findings align
with studies indicating that Design Thinking can enhance reading, writing, and vocabulary
development through inquiry-based learning, research activities, and iterative feedback
processes in EFL classrooms (Afifi, 2023; Mujino et al., 2024; Gantsetseg & Oyun-Erdene,
2025)
The qualitative analysis also explores the theme Student-Centered Learning and
Autonomy, which reflects teachers’ perceptions of how Design Thinking shifts classroom
dynamics toward more learner-driven processes. This theme includes three main subthemes:
Ownership of Learning, Student-Centered Focus, and Reflection. Together, these dimensions
highlight how the Design Thinking approach encourages students to take a more active role in
the learning process while redefining the teacher’s role as a facilitator. Previous research has
pointed out that Design Thinking promotes learner-centered environments where students
engage in inquiry, collaboration, and problem-solving while teachers guide the process rather
than deliver content directly (Cleminson & Cowie, 2021; Kang, 2021; Shé et al., 2022). The
survey results strongly support these perceptions, showing 100% agreement across these
dimensions, including ownership and autonomy (28.6% strongly agree; 71.4% agree), student-
centered focus (28.6% strongly agree; 71.4% agree), and professional reflection (28.6% strongly
agree; 71.4% agree).
One of the most prominent aspects of this theme is ownership of learning, where
teachers observed that students became more responsible for generating ideas and developing
solutions throughout the Design Thinking process. Interview data indicate that students actively
assumed roles typically associated with inquiry-based learning. For example, one teacher
explained that “students take responsibility for generating ideas and solving problems” (TA),
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 376
while another noted that “students become researchers, analysts, designers, and presenters”
(TM). These perceptions align with the survey results, where 100% of teachers agreed that
Design Thinking promotes greater ownership and autonomy, suggesting that the methodology
supports student agency and responsibility in the learning process. Similar findings have been
reported in previous studies showing that Design Thinking fosters autonomy and active
participation as learners engage in collaborative problem-solving and project-based tasks
(Baričević & Luić, 2023; Sotlikova, 2023).
Another important dimension within this theme relates to student-centered focus and
reflective learning. Teachers reported that the role of the instructor shifted from traditional
knowledge transmission toward facilitation and guidance during the Design Thinking stages. As
one participant explained, “the teacher acts as a facilitator rather than a lecturer” (TL), while
another suggests that “students are responsible for generating ideas and reflecting on their
performance” (TC). Reflection was also highlighted as an essential component of the learning
process, particularly through peer evaluation and iterative feedback cycles. For instance, one
teacher stated that “peer assessment and reflection strengthened self-evaluation” (TL), while
another noted that “I now emphasize iterative learning and student autonomy” (TC). These
insights, together with the 100% agreement observed in the survey, suggest that Design
Thinking supports the development of learner autonomy, reflective practices, and more student-
centered learning environments in EFL classrooms. These findings are consistent with research
indicating that Design Thinking encourages reflective learning and collaborative inquiry while
transforming classroom roles and instructional practices (Ekarina & Engliana, 2025; Wang,
2024).
The qualitative findings also highlight the theme of Motivation and Confidence,
reflecting teachers’ perceptions of how Design Thinking activities influence students’
engagement and willingness to use English in the classroom. The first subtheme, Increased
Participation, indicates the role of Design Thinking in fostering active student involvement
during learning activities. Teachers reported that collaborative tasks such as brainstorming,
discussions, and presentations encouraged students to participate more actively in class. As one
teacher noted, “the level of student engagement and participation has significantly increased”
(TAL), while another observed that “I observed increased motivation and engagement” (TM).
These perceptions are strongly supported by the survey results, which show that 100% of
teachers agreed that Design Thinking increased motivation and participation (42.9% strongly
agree; 57.1% agree), indicating that teachers widely perceive the methodology as promoting
active engagement in EFL learning. Similar findings have been reported in previous studies,
suggesting that Design Thinking encourages participation and collaborative engagement
through problem-solving tasks and interactive learning environments (Cleminson & Cowie,
2021; Baričević & Luić, 2023; Swallow & Tomalin, 2024).
while another noted that “students become researchers, analysts, designers, and presenters”
(TM). These perceptions align with the survey results, where 100% of teachers agreed that
Design Thinking promotes greater ownership and autonomy, suggesting that the methodology
supports student agency and responsibility in the learning process. Similar findings have been
reported in previous studies showing that Design Thinking fosters autonomy and active
participation as learners engage in collaborative problem-solving and project-based tasks
(Baričević & Luić, 2023; Sotlikova, 2023).
Another important dimension within this theme relates to student-centered focus and
reflective learning. Teachers reported that the role of the instructor shifted from traditional
knowledge transmission toward facilitation and guidance during the Design Thinking stages. As
one participant explained, “the teacher acts as a facilitator rather than a lecturer” (TL), while
another suggests that “students are responsible for generating ideas and reflecting on their
performance” (TC). Reflection was also highlighted as an essential component of the learning
process, particularly through peer evaluation and iterative feedback cycles. For instance, one
teacher stated that “peer assessment and reflection strengthened self-evaluation” (TL), while
another noted that “I now emphasize iterative learning and student autonomy” (TC). These
insights, together with the 100% agreement observed in the survey, suggest that Design
Thinking supports the development of learner autonomy, reflective practices, and more student-
centered learning environments in EFL classrooms. These findings are consistent with research
indicating that Design Thinking encourages reflective learning and collaborative inquiry while
transforming classroom roles and instructional practices (Ekarina & Engliana, 2025; Wang,
2024).
The qualitative findings also highlight the theme of Motivation and Confidence,
reflecting teachers’ perceptions of how Design Thinking activities influence students’
engagement and willingness to use English in the classroom. The first subtheme, Increased
Participation, indicates the role of Design Thinking in fostering active student involvement
during learning activities. Teachers reported that collaborative tasks such as brainstorming,
discussions, and presentations encouraged students to participate more actively in class. As one
teacher noted, “the level of student engagement and participation has significantly increased”
(TAL), while another observed that “I observed increased motivation and engagement” (TM).
These perceptions are strongly supported by the survey results, which show that 100% of
teachers agreed that Design Thinking increased motivation and participation (42.9% strongly
agree; 57.1% agree), indicating that teachers widely perceive the methodology as promoting
active engagement in EFL learning. Similar findings have been reported in previous studies,
suggesting that Design Thinking encourages participation and collaborative engagement
through problem-solving tasks and interactive learning environments (Cleminson & Cowie,
2021; Baričević & Luić, 2023; Swallow & Tomalin, 2024).
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 377
The second subtheme, Reduced Anxiety, reflects teachers’ observations that students
became more confident when using English during Design Thinking activities. Interview
participants explained that the collaborative, exploratory nature of the methodology created a
supportive environment in which students felt more comfortable expressing their ideas. For
example, one teacher stated that “students are less afraid of making mistakes” (CT), while
another highlighted that “the Ideate stage reduced fear and encouraged risk-taking” (TM).
These qualitative findings are consistent with the survey results, which show 100% agreement
regarding increased confidence in English use (42.9% strongly agree; 57.1% agree). Together,
these findings suggest that Design Thinking not only increases motivation but also helps create
a learning environment where students feel more confident and willing to communicate in
English. Previous research has similarly shown that Design Thinking promotes a supportive
learning environment that encourages experimentation, risk-taking, and communicative
confidence in EFL contexts (Almalki, 2023; Weganofa et al., 2024; Yu et al., 2024).
The qualitative findings also spotlight the theme Higher-Order Thinking, which reflects
teachers’ perceptions of how Design Thinking fosters advanced cognitive skills in EFL learning.
This theme includes the development of problem-solving, critical thinking, and creativity,
which teachers observed throughout the different stages of the Design Thinking process. In
particular, the subtheme Problem-Solving presents how teachers believe that students engage in
structured solution design and iterative improvement of their ideas. Teachers reported that
students refined their proposals through multiple stages, such as brainstorming, prototyping, and
testing. For example, one participant noted that “students refined their solutions through
multiple iterations” (TL), while another explained that “problem-solving tasks enhanced
decision-making skills” (TM). These findings suggest that the structured stages of Design
Thinking support analytical reasoning and collaborative solution development, enabling
students to approach language learning tasks as real-world problems that require evaluation and
refinement. Previous research similarly indicates that Design Thinking promotes problem-
solving and collaborative inquiry through iterative learning processes and real-world tasks
(Guamán-Quintanilla et al., 2020; Baričević & Luić, 2023; Yu et al., 2024).
In addition to problem-solving, teachers also perceived notable improvements in critical
thinking and creativity. Interview participants explained that Design Thinking activities
encouraged students to evaluate ideas, justify their decisions, and generate innovative solutions
during collaborative discussions. As one teacher noted, “the difficulty-impact matrix
strengthened analytical reasoning” (TM), while another stated that “students evaluate options
and justify solutions in English” (TA). Creativity was also frequently mentioned, with teachers
observing that “students generate multiple solutions and negotiate ideas” (TC) and that Design
Thinking created “more innovative lesson dynamics” (TA). These qualitative insights align
with the survey findings, which show that 100% of teachers agreed that Design Thinking
The second subtheme, Reduced Anxiety, reflects teachers’ observations that students
became more confident when using English during Design Thinking activities. Interview
participants explained that the collaborative, exploratory nature of the methodology created a
supportive environment in which students felt more comfortable expressing their ideas. For
example, one teacher stated that “students are less afraid of making mistakes” (CT), while
another highlighted that “the Ideate stage reduced fear and encouraged risk-taking” (TM).
These qualitative findings are consistent with the survey results, which show 100% agreement
regarding increased confidence in English use (42.9% strongly agree; 57.1% agree). Together,
these findings suggest that Design Thinking not only increases motivation but also helps create
a learning environment where students feel more confident and willing to communicate in
English. Previous research has similarly shown that Design Thinking promotes a supportive
learning environment that encourages experimentation, risk-taking, and communicative
confidence in EFL contexts (Almalki, 2023; Weganofa et al., 2024; Yu et al., 2024).
The qualitative findings also spotlight the theme Higher-Order Thinking, which reflects
teachers’ perceptions of how Design Thinking fosters advanced cognitive skills in EFL learning.
This theme includes the development of problem-solving, critical thinking, and creativity,
which teachers observed throughout the different stages of the Design Thinking process. In
particular, the subtheme Problem-Solving presents how teachers believe that students engage in
structured solution design and iterative improvement of their ideas. Teachers reported that
students refined their proposals through multiple stages, such as brainstorming, prototyping, and
testing. For example, one participant noted that “students refined their solutions through
multiple iterations” (TL), while another explained that “problem-solving tasks enhanced
decision-making skills” (TM). These findings suggest that the structured stages of Design
Thinking support analytical reasoning and collaborative solution development, enabling
students to approach language learning tasks as real-world problems that require evaluation and
refinement. Previous research similarly indicates that Design Thinking promotes problem-
solving and collaborative inquiry through iterative learning processes and real-world tasks
(Guamán-Quintanilla et al., 2020; Baričević & Luić, 2023; Yu et al., 2024).
In addition to problem-solving, teachers also perceived notable improvements in critical
thinking and creativity. Interview participants explained that Design Thinking activities
encouraged students to evaluate ideas, justify their decisions, and generate innovative solutions
during collaborative discussions. As one teacher noted, “the difficulty-impact matrix
strengthened analytical reasoning” (TM), while another stated that “students evaluate options
and justify solutions in English” (TA). Creativity was also frequently mentioned, with teachers
observing that “students generate multiple solutions and negotiate ideas” (TC) and that Design
Thinking created “more innovative lesson dynamics” (TA). These qualitative insights align
with the survey findings, which show that 100% of teachers agreed that Design Thinking
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 378
enhances critical and creative thinking (42.9% strongly agree; 57.1% agree), indicating that the
methodology is perceived as an effective approach for developing higher-order thinking skills in
EFL classrooms. These results are consistent with studies suggesting that Design Thinking
fosters creativity, critical reflection, and innovative problem-solving in language learning
contexts (Sotlikova, 2023; Weganofa et al., 2024; Swallow & Tomalin, 2024).
The qualitative analysis also highlights the theme of Professional Development,
reflecting teachers’ perceptions of how implementing Design Thinking influences their
pedagogical practices. This theme includes two main subthemes: Innovative Lesson Design and
Improved Planning. Together, these dimensions illustrate how Design Thinking can support
teachers in moving toward more structured, student-centered instruction and in redesigning
lessons around iterative cycles of inquiry and feedback. This aligns with research indicating that
Design Thinking in education often functions as a framework for pedagogical innovation and
teacher growth, particularly through reflective planning and learner-centered task design (Kang,
2021; Cleminson & Cowie, 2021). The survey results strongly support these perceptions, with
100% of teachers agreeing on innovative lesson design and improved planning (28.6% strongly
agree; 71.4% agree).
Regarding Innovative Lesson Design, teachers described how Design Thinking
encouraged them to restructure lessons through stages such as brainstorming, prototyping, and
testing, thereby promoting more engaging classroom dynamics. For instance, one teacher stated,
“My lesson planning now integrates structured stages and feedback cycles” (TL), while another
noted, “I now design more innovative and engaging lessons” (TAL). These perceptions are
consistent with recent studies showing that Design Thinking supports innovation in lesson
design by promoting iterative learning tasks and problem-based restructuring of classroom
activities (Ekarina & Engliana, 2025; Sotlikova, 2023). Concerning Improved Planning,
teachers declared that the DT cycle helped them organize lessons more intentionally. As one
participant explained, “lesson planning now follows a structured cycle” (TM), while another
added, “my planning has become more intentional” (TA). This is consistent with the literature,
which argues that Design Thinking offers teachers a systematic planning structure that
strengthens sequencing, coherence, and reflective instructional decision-making (Lake et al.,
2024; Shé et al., 2022).
The qualitative findings also reveal the theme of Implementation Challenges, reflecting
teachers’ perceptions of the practical difficulties encountered when applying Design Thinking in
EFL classrooms. This theme includes three main subthemes: Curriculum Integration, Classroom
Management, and Time Constraints. These dimensions highlight contextual factors that may
influence the implementation of Design Thinking within existing educational structures.
Previous studies indicate that although Design Thinking promotes innovation and student-
centered learning, its application often requires adjustments in instructional planning, classroom
enhances critical and creative thinking (42.9% strongly agree; 57.1% agree), indicating that the
methodology is perceived as an effective approach for developing higher-order thinking skills in
EFL classrooms. These results are consistent with studies suggesting that Design Thinking
fosters creativity, critical reflection, and innovative problem-solving in language learning
contexts (Sotlikova, 2023; Weganofa et al., 2024; Swallow & Tomalin, 2024).
The qualitative analysis also highlights the theme of Professional Development,
reflecting teachers’ perceptions of how implementing Design Thinking influences their
pedagogical practices. This theme includes two main subthemes: Innovative Lesson Design and
Improved Planning. Together, these dimensions illustrate how Design Thinking can support
teachers in moving toward more structured, student-centered instruction and in redesigning
lessons around iterative cycles of inquiry and feedback. This aligns with research indicating that
Design Thinking in education often functions as a framework for pedagogical innovation and
teacher growth, particularly through reflective planning and learner-centered task design (Kang,
2021; Cleminson & Cowie, 2021). The survey results strongly support these perceptions, with
100% of teachers agreeing on innovative lesson design and improved planning (28.6% strongly
agree; 71.4% agree).
Regarding Innovative Lesson Design, teachers described how Design Thinking
encouraged them to restructure lessons through stages such as brainstorming, prototyping, and
testing, thereby promoting more engaging classroom dynamics. For instance, one teacher stated,
“My lesson planning now integrates structured stages and feedback cycles” (TL), while another
noted, “I now design more innovative and engaging lessons” (TAL). These perceptions are
consistent with recent studies showing that Design Thinking supports innovation in lesson
design by promoting iterative learning tasks and problem-based restructuring of classroom
activities (Ekarina & Engliana, 2025; Sotlikova, 2023). Concerning Improved Planning,
teachers declared that the DT cycle helped them organize lessons more intentionally. As one
participant explained, “lesson planning now follows a structured cycle” (TM), while another
added, “my planning has become more intentional” (TA). This is consistent with the literature,
which argues that Design Thinking offers teachers a systematic planning structure that
strengthens sequencing, coherence, and reflective instructional decision-making (Lake et al.,
2024; Shé et al., 2022).
The qualitative findings also reveal the theme of Implementation Challenges, reflecting
teachers’ perceptions of the practical difficulties encountered when applying Design Thinking in
EFL classrooms. This theme includes three main subthemes: Curriculum Integration, Classroom
Management, and Time Constraints. These dimensions highlight contextual factors that may
influence the implementation of Design Thinking within existing educational structures.
Previous studies indicate that although Design Thinking promotes innovation and student-
centered learning, its application often requires adjustments in instructional planning, classroom
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 379
organization, and time allocation (Lake et al., 2024; Alvarado, 2025). The survey results support
these perceptions, indicating that teachers recognized several contextual challenges when
integrating this approach into their teaching practice.
Regarding Curriculum Integration, teachers state that incorporating Design Thinking
into existing courses requires additional planning and instructional adaptation. Participants
explained that aligning the different stages of Design Thinking with institutional curricula
involves redesigning activities and allocating time for research, brainstorming, and feedback
cycles. For example, one teacher stated that “integrating all stages within limited class time
requires careful planning” (TC), while another noted that “integrating DT into the existing
curriculum requires extra effort” (Survey). These perceptions are reflected in the survey
findings, where 85.7% of teachers agreed that curriculum integration requires additional effort
(14.3% strongly agree; 71.4% agree). Similar findings have been reported in the literature,
suggesting that implementing Design Thinking often requires curricular adjustments and more
intentional lesson structuring to accommodate iterative learning processes (Shé et al., 2022;
Wang, 2024).
The subthemes Classroom Management and Time Constraints further illustrate the
practical challenges teachers face when implementing Design Thinking activities. Teachers
reported that managing collaborative tasks with multiple student groups can increase classroom
complexity. As one participant explained, “managing large groups can be challenging” (TC).
The survey results support this perception, with 57.2% of teachers reporting difficulties related
to managing large numbers of students (14.3% strongly agree; 42.9% agree). In addition, Time
Constraints emerged as another relevant challenge, as teachers indicated that completing all
stages of the Design Thinking cycle often requires more instructional time. One teacher noted
that “the main limitation was limited instructional time” (TL), while another explained that
“integrating all stages requires more preparation time” (TA). These findings align with
previous research suggesting that Design Thinking requires extended time for exploration,
iteration, and reflection, which may create tensions within fixed course schedules (Cleminson &
Cowie, 2021; Sotlikova, 2023).
Integration of Quantitative and Qualitative Findings
Integrated analysis shows convergence between survey and interview findings. For
instance, survey results indicated 100% agreement regarding improvement in speaking fluency.
This quantitative trend was supported by interview data, where teachers reported that students
reduced hesitation, relied less on memorization, and communicated more spontaneously during
Design Thinking tasks. Therefore, both data sources suggest that teachers perceive DT as
particularly beneficial for oral communication.
organization, and time allocation (Lake et al., 2024; Alvarado, 2025). The survey results support
these perceptions, indicating that teachers recognized several contextual challenges when
integrating this approach into their teaching practice.
Regarding Curriculum Integration, teachers state that incorporating Design Thinking
into existing courses requires additional planning and instructional adaptation. Participants
explained that aligning the different stages of Design Thinking with institutional curricula
involves redesigning activities and allocating time for research, brainstorming, and feedback
cycles. For example, one teacher stated that “integrating all stages within limited class time
requires careful planning” (TC), while another noted that “integrating DT into the existing
curriculum requires extra effort” (Survey). These perceptions are reflected in the survey
findings, where 85.7% of teachers agreed that curriculum integration requires additional effort
(14.3% strongly agree; 71.4% agree). Similar findings have been reported in the literature,
suggesting that implementing Design Thinking often requires curricular adjustments and more
intentional lesson structuring to accommodate iterative learning processes (Shé et al., 2022;
Wang, 2024).
The subthemes Classroom Management and Time Constraints further illustrate the
practical challenges teachers face when implementing Design Thinking activities. Teachers
reported that managing collaborative tasks with multiple student groups can increase classroom
complexity. As one participant explained, “managing large groups can be challenging” (TC).
The survey results support this perception, with 57.2% of teachers reporting difficulties related
to managing large numbers of students (14.3% strongly agree; 42.9% agree). In addition, Time
Constraints emerged as another relevant challenge, as teachers indicated that completing all
stages of the Design Thinking cycle often requires more instructional time. One teacher noted
that “the main limitation was limited instructional time” (TL), while another explained that
“integrating all stages requires more preparation time” (TA). These findings align with
previous research suggesting that Design Thinking requires extended time for exploration,
iteration, and reflection, which may create tensions within fixed course schedules (Cleminson &
Cowie, 2021; Sotlikova, 2023).
Integration of Quantitative and Qualitative Findings
Integrated analysis shows convergence between survey and interview findings. For
instance, survey results indicated 100% agreement regarding improvement in speaking fluency.
This quantitative trend was supported by interview data, where teachers reported that students
reduced hesitation, relied less on memorization, and communicated more spontaneously during
Design Thinking tasks. Therefore, both data sources suggest that teachers perceive DT as
particularly beneficial for oral communication.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 380
Research
Focus
Quantitative
Result Qualitative Support Interpretation
Speaking
skills
100%
agreement
(28.6% SA;
71.4% A)
Teachers reported reduced
hesitation, less memorization,
and more spontaneous
communication during DT
tasks
Findings suggest that participants in
this study perceived DT as supporting
oral communication through
interaction and iterative speaking
practice
Motivation &
confidence
100%
agreement
(42.9% SA;
57.1% A)
Teachers observed increased
participation, reduced anxiety,
and greater willingness to
communicate
Results indicate that DT is perceived
as creating a supportive and student-
centered learning environment
Listening,
reading,
writing
100%
agreement
across skills
Teachers described
improvements through
interviews, research tasks, and
feedback cycles
Data suggest that DT may support
integrated language development
through authentic tasks
Vocabulary
development
85.7%
agreement
Teachers noted vocabulary
growth through repeated
contextual use
Findings indicate that vocabulary
development is perceived as gradual
and dependent on continued exposure
Student
autonomy
100%
agreement
Teachers reported increased
learner responsibility and active
roles
Results suggest that DT promotes
learner autonomy and ownership of
learning
Higher-order
thinking
100%
agreement
Teachers described problem-
solving, idea generation, and
critical evaluation
Findings suggest that DT is perceived
as fostering critical and creative
thinking
Challenges
(curriculum
& time)
85.7%
agreement on
curriculum
effort
Teachers reported need for
additional planning and limited
time
Results indicate that DT
implementation requires adaptation
within institutional constraints
The integration of quantitative and qualitative findings reveals a clear convergence
between numerical trends and teachers’ experiential accounts. Across all major categories,
survey results were consistently supported by interview data, suggesting alignment between
reported perceptions and classroom observations within this small sample.
For instance, survey findings indicated full agreement regarding improvements in
speaking interaction, comprehension, and fluency. This pattern was reinforced by qualitative
data, which showed that teachers reported reduced hesitation, decreased reliance on
memorization, and more spontaneous communication during Design Thinking activities. Rather
than suggesting objective improvement, these findings indicate that participants in this study
perceived Design Thinking as supporting oral communication through interaction,
collaboration, and iterative speaking practice.
Similarly, the quantitative results showed full agreement in motivation and confidence,
which was strongly supported by interview data highlighting increased participation, reduced
anxiety, and greater willingness to communicate. These findings suggest that teachers perceive
Research
Focus
Quantitative
Result Qualitative Support Interpretation
Speaking
skills
100%
agreement
(28.6% SA;
71.4% A)
Teachers reported reduced
hesitation, less memorization,
and more spontaneous
communication during DT
tasks
Findings suggest that participants in
this study perceived DT as supporting
oral communication through
interaction and iterative speaking
practice
Motivation &
confidence
100%
agreement
(42.9% SA;
57.1% A)
Teachers observed increased
participation, reduced anxiety,
and greater willingness to
communicate
Results indicate that DT is perceived
as creating a supportive and student-
centered learning environment
Listening,
reading,
writing
100%
agreement
across skills
Teachers described
improvements through
interviews, research tasks, and
feedback cycles
Data suggest that DT may support
integrated language development
through authentic tasks
Vocabulary
development
85.7%
agreement
Teachers noted vocabulary
growth through repeated
contextual use
Findings indicate that vocabulary
development is perceived as gradual
and dependent on continued exposure
Student
autonomy
100%
agreement
Teachers reported increased
learner responsibility and active
roles
Results suggest that DT promotes
learner autonomy and ownership of
learning
Higher-order
thinking
100%
agreement
Teachers described problem-
solving, idea generation, and
critical evaluation
Findings suggest that DT is perceived
as fostering critical and creative
thinking
Challenges
(curriculum
& time)
85.7%
agreement on
curriculum
effort
Teachers reported need for
additional planning and limited
time
Results indicate that DT
implementation requires adaptation
within institutional constraints
The integration of quantitative and qualitative findings reveals a clear convergence
between numerical trends and teachers’ experiential accounts. Across all major categories,
survey results were consistently supported by interview data, suggesting alignment between
reported perceptions and classroom observations within this small sample.
For instance, survey findings indicated full agreement regarding improvements in
speaking interaction, comprehension, and fluency. This pattern was reinforced by qualitative
data, which showed that teachers reported reduced hesitation, decreased reliance on
memorization, and more spontaneous communication during Design Thinking activities. Rather
than suggesting objective improvement, these findings indicate that participants in this study
perceived Design Thinking as supporting oral communication through interaction,
collaboration, and iterative speaking practice.
Similarly, the quantitative results showed full agreement in motivation and confidence,
which was strongly supported by interview data highlighting increased participation, reduced
anxiety, and greater willingness to communicate. These findings suggest that teachers perceive
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 381
Design Thinking as contributing to a more supportive and student-centered learning
environment, where learners feel encouraged to take risks and engage actively in English.
A similar convergence was observed in the development of listening, reading, and
writing skills. Teachers described how activities such as interviews, research tasks, and iterative
feedback cycles contributed to language development. These insights align with the survey data
and suggest that Design Thinking is perceived as supporting integrated skill development
through authentic and inquiry-based learning experiences.
In contrast, vocabulary development showed slightly lower levels of agreement, as
reflected in the qualitative data. Teachers emphasized that vocabulary acquisition depends on
repeated exposure and continued practice, indicating that its development may require longer
instructional periods. This divergence highlights that not all language areas are perceived as
equally impacted by Design Thinking, adding nuance to the findings.
Finally, both data strands consistently identified implementation challenges, particularly
related to curriculum integration and time constraints. Teachers reported that applying all stages
of Design Thinking requires additional planning and adaptation, which aligns with the
quantitative findings indicating agreement on these challenges. These results suggest that while
Design Thinking is perceived as pedagogically valuable, its implementation is influenced by
contextual limitations.
Overall, the integration of both strands indicates that the quantitative results were not
isolated numerical patterns but were supported by teachers’ detailed classroom experiences.
This convergence strengthens the credibility of the findings and suggests that, within this
specific context, teachers perceive Design Thinking as a useful framework for promoting
communicative competence, learner autonomy, and higher-order thinking in EFL classrooms.
However, these interpretations should be understood as perception-based and context-specific
rather than generalizable conclusions.
The integration of both strands indicates that the quantitative results were not isolated
numerical trends but were reinforced by teachers’ detailed classroom experiences. This
convergence strengthens the credibility of the findings and supports the interpretation that DT is
perceived as a useful framework for promoting communicative competence, learner autonomy,
and higher-order thinking in EFL classrooms.
CONCLUSIONS
How do TEFL teachers apply the five-stage Design Thinking process in teaching?
The findings suggest that TEFL teachers do not merely implement the Design Thinking
(DT) stages as isolated instructional steps, but rather adopt them as a structured pedagogical
framework that reshapes classroom interaction and promotes inquiry-based learning. Across the
stages, DT appears to function as an organizing cycle that facilitates sustained communicative
Design Thinking as contributing to a more supportive and student-centered learning
environment, where learners feel encouraged to take risks and engage actively in English.
A similar convergence was observed in the development of listening, reading, and
writing skills. Teachers described how activities such as interviews, research tasks, and iterative
feedback cycles contributed to language development. These insights align with the survey data
and suggest that Design Thinking is perceived as supporting integrated skill development
through authentic and inquiry-based learning experiences.
In contrast, vocabulary development showed slightly lower levels of agreement, as
reflected in the qualitative data. Teachers emphasized that vocabulary acquisition depends on
repeated exposure and continued practice, indicating that its development may require longer
instructional periods. This divergence highlights that not all language areas are perceived as
equally impacted by Design Thinking, adding nuance to the findings.
Finally, both data strands consistently identified implementation challenges, particularly
related to curriculum integration and time constraints. Teachers reported that applying all stages
of Design Thinking requires additional planning and adaptation, which aligns with the
quantitative findings indicating agreement on these challenges. These results suggest that while
Design Thinking is perceived as pedagogically valuable, its implementation is influenced by
contextual limitations.
Overall, the integration of both strands indicates that the quantitative results were not
isolated numerical patterns but were supported by teachers’ detailed classroom experiences.
This convergence strengthens the credibility of the findings and suggests that, within this
specific context, teachers perceive Design Thinking as a useful framework for promoting
communicative competence, learner autonomy, and higher-order thinking in EFL classrooms.
However, these interpretations should be understood as perception-based and context-specific
rather than generalizable conclusions.
The integration of both strands indicates that the quantitative results were not isolated
numerical trends but were reinforced by teachers’ detailed classroom experiences. This
convergence strengthens the credibility of the findings and supports the interpretation that DT is
perceived as a useful framework for promoting communicative competence, learner autonomy,
and higher-order thinking in EFL classrooms.
CONCLUSIONS
How do TEFL teachers apply the five-stage Design Thinking process in teaching?
The findings suggest that TEFL teachers do not merely implement the Design Thinking
(DT) stages as isolated instructional steps, but rather adopt them as a structured pedagogical
framework that reshapes classroom interaction and promotes inquiry-based learning. Across the
stages, DT appears to function as an organizing cycle that facilitates sustained communicative
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 382
engagement, collaborative problem-solving, and iterative reflection. In this sense, the process
supports a shift from content transmission toward meaning-making practices, where language is
used as a tool for exploring and addressing real-world issues. This indicates that, in this context,
DT is perceived not only as a methodology but also as a framework that reconfigures
pedagogical dynamics toward more student-centered, interaction-driven learning environments.
To what extent do teachers perceive that Design Thinking enhances students’ EFL skills?
Within this small, perception-based sample, teachers consistently associated the implementation
of Design Thinking with improvements in students’ communicative competence, particularly in
speaking fluency, confidence, and spontaneity. These perceived gains appear to be linked to the
iterative and collaborative nature of DT tasks, which require learners to negotiate meaning,
present ideas, and engage in continuous interaction. In addition, teachers reported perceived
development across other language skills, suggesting that DT may support integrated language
learning through authentic, inquiry-driven activities. However, these findings should be
interpreted cautiously, as they reflect teachers’ professional judgments rather than objective
measures of language performance. Notably, vocabulary development was perceived as more
gradual, indicating that certain linguistic areas may require sustained exposure beyond the scope
of short-term DT implementation.
What benefits and challenges do teachers perceive when integrating Design Thinking into
the EFL curriculum?
From a pedagogical perspective, teachers perceived Design Thinking as fostering increased
student motivation, active participation, and communicative confidence, while also supporting
the development of higher-order thinking skills such as critical thinking, creativity, and
problem-solving. These findings suggest that DT contributes to creating more engaging,
student-centered learning environments where learners take greater ownership of the learning
process. At the same time, the study highlights important contextual constraints, particularly
related to instructional time, curriculum alignment, and classroom management. These
challenges indicate that the implementation of DT is not neutral, but mediated by institutional
conditions and practical limitations. Nevertheless, teachers generally perceived these constraints
as manageable, suggesting that the pedagogical value of DT may outweigh the demands of its
implementation when adequate support and planning are provided.
Overall, the findings indicate that Design Thinking is perceived as a valuable pedagogical
framework for EFL instruction in Ecuadorian public university contexts, as it promotes
communicative interaction, learner autonomy, and higher-order thinking through authentic and
collaborative tasks. Importantly, this study contributes to the limited body of research focusing
on teachers’ perspectives in Latin American EFL settings, offering context-specific insights into
how DT is interpreted and enacted in practice. Rather than demonstrating causal effects, the
engagement, collaborative problem-solving, and iterative reflection. In this sense, the process
supports a shift from content transmission toward meaning-making practices, where language is
used as a tool for exploring and addressing real-world issues. This indicates that, in this context,
DT is perceived not only as a methodology but also as a framework that reconfigures
pedagogical dynamics toward more student-centered, interaction-driven learning environments.
To what extent do teachers perceive that Design Thinking enhances students’ EFL skills?
Within this small, perception-based sample, teachers consistently associated the implementation
of Design Thinking with improvements in students’ communicative competence, particularly in
speaking fluency, confidence, and spontaneity. These perceived gains appear to be linked to the
iterative and collaborative nature of DT tasks, which require learners to negotiate meaning,
present ideas, and engage in continuous interaction. In addition, teachers reported perceived
development across other language skills, suggesting that DT may support integrated language
learning through authentic, inquiry-driven activities. However, these findings should be
interpreted cautiously, as they reflect teachers’ professional judgments rather than objective
measures of language performance. Notably, vocabulary development was perceived as more
gradual, indicating that certain linguistic areas may require sustained exposure beyond the scope
of short-term DT implementation.
What benefits and challenges do teachers perceive when integrating Design Thinking into
the EFL curriculum?
From a pedagogical perspective, teachers perceived Design Thinking as fostering increased
student motivation, active participation, and communicative confidence, while also supporting
the development of higher-order thinking skills such as critical thinking, creativity, and
problem-solving. These findings suggest that DT contributes to creating more engaging,
student-centered learning environments where learners take greater ownership of the learning
process. At the same time, the study highlights important contextual constraints, particularly
related to instructional time, curriculum alignment, and classroom management. These
challenges indicate that the implementation of DT is not neutral, but mediated by institutional
conditions and practical limitations. Nevertheless, teachers generally perceived these constraints
as manageable, suggesting that the pedagogical value of DT may outweigh the demands of its
implementation when adequate support and planning are provided.
Overall, the findings indicate that Design Thinking is perceived as a valuable pedagogical
framework for EFL instruction in Ecuadorian public university contexts, as it promotes
communicative interaction, learner autonomy, and higher-order thinking through authentic and
collaborative tasks. Importantly, this study contributes to the limited body of research focusing
on teachers’ perspectives in Latin American EFL settings, offering context-specific insights into
how DT is interpreted and enacted in practice. Rather than demonstrating causal effects, the
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 383
study provides a perception-based understanding of how teachers evaluate the pedagogical
affordances and constraints of DT within their instructional environments.
From a theoretical perspective, these findings align with Lev Vygotsky’s view of
learning as a socially mediated process, as language development was perceived to emerge
through interaction, collaboration, and shared problem-solving. From a practical standpoint, the
study underscores the need for targeted teacher training, curriculum flexibility, and instructional
support to facilitate the effective integration of iterative pedagogies such as Design Thinking
within constrained academic settings.
Future research should move beyond perception-based data to examine the long-term
impact of Design Thinking on measurable language outcomes, incorporate students’
perspectives, and explore its application across different proficiency levels and institutional
contexts. Such research would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the role of
Design Thinking in EFL education and its potential to contribute to sustainable pedagogical
innovation.
study provides a perception-based understanding of how teachers evaluate the pedagogical
affordances and constraints of DT within their instructional environments.
From a theoretical perspective, these findings align with Lev Vygotsky’s view of
learning as a socially mediated process, as language development was perceived to emerge
through interaction, collaboration, and shared problem-solving. From a practical standpoint, the
study underscores the need for targeted teacher training, curriculum flexibility, and instructional
support to facilitate the effective integration of iterative pedagogies such as Design Thinking
within constrained academic settings.
Future research should move beyond perception-based data to examine the long-term
impact of Design Thinking on measurable language outcomes, incorporate students’
perspectives, and explore its application across different proficiency levels and institutional
contexts. Such research would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the role of
Design Thinking in EFL education and its potential to contribute to sustainable pedagogical
innovation.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 384
REFERENCES
Affifi, A. (2023). Design thinking: An approach to develop writing performance (secondary
EFL). ERIC.
Almache-Granda, G., Aguilar-Parra, J., Ramírez-Romero, E., & Coello-Vásquez, V. (2024).
Design thinking to facilitate the development of TEFL students’ competencies. Polo del
Conocimiento, 9(12), 1345–1361.
https://polodelconocimiento.com/ojs/index.php/es/article/view/8545
Almalki, A. (2023). The impact of integrating design thinking on EFL students’ oral
performance. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 11(2), 45–52.
Alrehalil, T., & Alhawsawi, S. (2022). The effectiveness of design thinking in improving
English language learning. International Journal of Instruction, 15(4), 321–338.
Alvarado, L. (2025). Design thinking and innovation in higher education learning environments.
[Manuscript in preparation].
Baum, A. (2021). Applying design thinking in education: Innovative teaching strategies.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(3), 1543–1561.
Baričević, M., & Luić, L. (2020). Design thinking as an innovative approach in education.
Journal of Education and Learning, 9(4), 20–30.
Brown, H. D. (2007a). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). Pearson
Education.
Brown, H. D. (2007b). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy
(3rd ed.). Pearson Education.
Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design: How Design Thinking Creates New Alternatives for
Business and Society. Harvard Business Press.
Cevikbas, M., & Kaiser, G. (2022). Enhancing student engagement through design thinking: A
model for interdisciplinary collaboration. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 43, 101013.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.101013
Cleminson, T., & Cowie, N. (2021). Using design thinking as an approach to creative and
communicative engagement in the English as a Foreign Language classroom. Journal of
University Teaching and Learning Practice, 18(5), 63–81.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.).
Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell J. D. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Creswell, J., & Poth, C. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Sage publications.
REFERENCES
Affifi, A. (2023). Design thinking: An approach to develop writing performance (secondary
EFL). ERIC.
Almache-Granda, G., Aguilar-Parra, J., Ramírez-Romero, E., & Coello-Vásquez, V. (2024).
Design thinking to facilitate the development of TEFL students’ competencies. Polo del
Conocimiento, 9(12), 1345–1361.
https://polodelconocimiento.com/ojs/index.php/es/article/view/8545
Almalki, A. (2023). The impact of integrating design thinking on EFL students’ oral
performance. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 11(2), 45–52.
Alrehalil, T., & Alhawsawi, S. (2022). The effectiveness of design thinking in improving
English language learning. International Journal of Instruction, 15(4), 321–338.
Alvarado, L. (2025). Design thinking and innovation in higher education learning environments.
[Manuscript in preparation].
Baum, A. (2021). Applying design thinking in education: Innovative teaching strategies.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(3), 1543–1561.
Baričević, M., & Luić, L. (2020). Design thinking as an innovative approach in education.
Journal of Education and Learning, 9(4), 20–30.
Brown, H. D. (2007a). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). Pearson
Education.
Brown, H. D. (2007b). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy
(3rd ed.). Pearson Education.
Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design: How Design Thinking Creates New Alternatives for
Business and Society. Harvard Business Press.
Cevikbas, M., & Kaiser, G. (2022). Enhancing student engagement through design thinking: A
model for interdisciplinary collaboration. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 43, 101013.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.101013
Cleminson, T., & Cowie, N. (2021). Using design thinking as an approach to creative and
communicative engagement in the English as a Foreign Language classroom. Journal of
University Teaching and Learning Practice, 18(5), 63–81.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.).
Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell J. D. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Creswell, J., & Poth, C. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Sage publications.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 385
Coyne, I. (1997). Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical sampling;
merging or clear boundaries?. Journal of advanced nursing, 26(3), 623-630.
Crites, K., & Rye, E. (2020). Applying design thinking to improve student learning in higher
education. Innovative Higher Education, 45(2), 123–137.
Dell’Era, C., Magistretti, S., & Verganti, R. (2020). Exploring collaborative practices in design
thinking. Creativity and Innovation Management, 29(3), 1–14.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
Durán, E., & García, K. (2021). Exploring EFL teaching and learning processes in
undergraduate courses. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 23(1),
145–160.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
Gregersen, T., & Horwitz, E. (2002). Language learning and perfectionism: Anxious and non-
anxious language learners’ reactions to their own oral performance. The Modern
Language Journal, 86(4), 562–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00161
Gantsetseg, S., & Oyun-Erdene, E. (2025). Adapting design thinking approach to enhance efl
students’academic writing performance and creative thinking skills. Sciences of Europe,
(164), 58-65.
Guamán-Quintanilla, S., Chiluiza, K., Everaert, P., & Valcke, M. (2020). Mapping the impact of
design thinking on teamwork, problem solving and creativity. In Proceedings of the
Design Society: DESIGN Conference (Vol. 1, pp. 1715–1724). Cambridge University
Press.
Jones, P. (2024). Design thinking in action: Fostering 21st-century skills alongside subject
knowledge. Design and Technology Education, 29(2), 219–247.
Kang, N. (2021). Design-thinking framed EFL autonomous learning through interactive e-
journaling. Journal of English Teaching through Movies and Media, 22(1), 91-117.
Lake, D., et al. (2024). Design thinking in higher education learning environments. Journal of
Educational Innovation, 12(1), 45–60.
Lee, D. (2022). Design thinking and learning innovation in language education. Educational
Research Review, 37, 100451.
Liedtka, J. (2018). Why design thinking works. Harvard Business Review, 96(5), 72–79.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140,
1–55.
McLaughlin, J.., Wolcott, M., Hubbard, D., Umstead, K., & Rider, T. (2019). A qualitative
review of the design thinking framework in education. Journal of Educational
Innovation, 5(2), 45–57.
Coyne, I. (1997). Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical sampling;
merging or clear boundaries?. Journal of advanced nursing, 26(3), 623-630.
Crites, K., & Rye, E. (2020). Applying design thinking to improve student learning in higher
education. Innovative Higher Education, 45(2), 123–137.
Dell’Era, C., Magistretti, S., & Verganti, R. (2020). Exploring collaborative practices in design
thinking. Creativity and Innovation Management, 29(3), 1–14.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
Durán, E., & García, K. (2021). Exploring EFL teaching and learning processes in
undergraduate courses. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 23(1),
145–160.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
Gregersen, T., & Horwitz, E. (2002). Language learning and perfectionism: Anxious and non-
anxious language learners’ reactions to their own oral performance. The Modern
Language Journal, 86(4), 562–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00161
Gantsetseg, S., & Oyun-Erdene, E. (2025). Adapting design thinking approach to enhance efl
students’academic writing performance and creative thinking skills. Sciences of Europe,
(164), 58-65.
Guamán-Quintanilla, S., Chiluiza, K., Everaert, P., & Valcke, M. (2020). Mapping the impact of
design thinking on teamwork, problem solving and creativity. In Proceedings of the
Design Society: DESIGN Conference (Vol. 1, pp. 1715–1724). Cambridge University
Press.
Jones, P. (2024). Design thinking in action: Fostering 21st-century skills alongside subject
knowledge. Design and Technology Education, 29(2), 219–247.
Kang, N. (2021). Design-thinking framed EFL autonomous learning through interactive e-
journaling. Journal of English Teaching through Movies and Media, 22(1), 91-117.
Lake, D., et al. (2024). Design thinking in higher education learning environments. Journal of
Educational Innovation, 12(1), 45–60.
Lee, D. (2022). Design thinking and learning innovation in language education. Educational
Research Review, 37, 100451.
Liedtka, J. (2018). Why design thinking works. Harvard Business Review, 96(5), 72–79.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140,
1–55.
McLaughlin, J.., Wolcott, M., Hubbard, D., Umstead, K., & Rider, T. (2019). A qualitative
review of the design thinking framework in education. Journal of Educational
Innovation, 5(2), 45–57.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 386
Mujiono, M., Weganofa, R., & Herawati, S. (2024). Exploring the design thinking orientation in
English as a foreign language (EFL) for learners: An instrument development study. KnE
Social Sciences, 216-228.
Nazim, M., & Mohammad, S. (2021). Design thinking for collaborative learning environments.
International Journal of Educational Research, 107, 101741.
OpenAI. (2024). ChatGPT (GPT-4o) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com
Papert, S. (1982). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.
Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. (2011). Design thinking: Understand – improve – apply.
Springer.
Puccio, G. , Mance, M., & Murdock, M. (2011). Creative leadership: Skills that drive change
(2nd ed.). Sage.
Rahmasari, B., Munir, A., & Nugroho, H. (2025). Fostering learner autonomy in EFL reading.
Cogent Education, 12(1), 2477367.
Reyes-Cruz, M., & Salazar-Navarro, A. (2024). Authentic assessment and design thinking in
online university contexts. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2),
134–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2229119
Richards, J. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge University Press.
Salomone, R. (2022). The inequities of English use in global higher education. Times Higher
Education.
Schcolnik, M., Kol, S., & Abarbanel, J. (2006). Constructivism in theory and practice. English
Teaching Forum, 44(4), 12–20.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
Shé, C., Farrell, O., Brunton, J., & Costello, E. (2022). Integrating design thinking into
instructional design: The# OpenTeach case study. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 38(1), 33-52.
Sotlikova, R. (2023). Design thinking in Education: Empowering students in ELT
class. Proceedings Series on Social Sciences & Humanities, 13, 196-199.
Swallow, D., & Tomalin, B. (2024). Design thinking in education: A paradigm shift in language
learning. Training, language and culture, 8(4), 86-94.
Temple, B., & Young, A. (2004). Qualitative research and translation dilemmas. Qualitative
Research, 4(2), 161–178.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Harvard University Press.
Wang, C. (2024). Using design thinking to support innovative learning environments.
Educational Technology & Society, 27(1), 45–57.
Yu, Q., Yu, K. & Lin, R. A meta-analysis of the effects of design thinking on student learning.
Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11, 742 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03237-5
Mujiono, M., Weganofa, R., & Herawati, S. (2024). Exploring the design thinking orientation in
English as a foreign language (EFL) for learners: An instrument development study. KnE
Social Sciences, 216-228.
Nazim, M., & Mohammad, S. (2021). Design thinking for collaborative learning environments.
International Journal of Educational Research, 107, 101741.
OpenAI. (2024). ChatGPT (GPT-4o) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com
Papert, S. (1982). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.
Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. (2011). Design thinking: Understand – improve – apply.
Springer.
Puccio, G. , Mance, M., & Murdock, M. (2011). Creative leadership: Skills that drive change
(2nd ed.). Sage.
Rahmasari, B., Munir, A., & Nugroho, H. (2025). Fostering learner autonomy in EFL reading.
Cogent Education, 12(1), 2477367.
Reyes-Cruz, M., & Salazar-Navarro, A. (2024). Authentic assessment and design thinking in
online university contexts. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2),
134–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2229119
Richards, J. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge University Press.
Salomone, R. (2022). The inequities of English use in global higher education. Times Higher
Education.
Schcolnik, M., Kol, S., & Abarbanel, J. (2006). Constructivism in theory and practice. English
Teaching Forum, 44(4), 12–20.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
Shé, C., Farrell, O., Brunton, J., & Costello, E. (2022). Integrating design thinking into
instructional design: The# OpenTeach case study. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 38(1), 33-52.
Sotlikova, R. (2023). Design thinking in Education: Empowering students in ELT
class. Proceedings Series on Social Sciences & Humanities, 13, 196-199.
Swallow, D., & Tomalin, B. (2024). Design thinking in education: A paradigm shift in language
learning. Training, language and culture, 8(4), 86-94.
Temple, B., & Young, A. (2004). Qualitative research and translation dilemmas. Qualitative
Research, 4(2), 161–178.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Harvard University Press.
Wang, C. (2024). Using design thinking to support innovative learning environments.
Educational Technology & Society, 27(1), 45–57.
Yu, Q., Yu, K. & Lin, R. A meta-analysis of the effects of design thinking on student learning.
Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11, 742 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03237-5
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 387
Yu, Q., Zhang, L., Xu, H., & Chen, Y. (2024). Design thinking and collaborative learning
outcomes in higher education. Computers & Education, 214, 105015.
Zaky, Y. A. M. (2024). Teaching with design thinking in language education. Language
Teaching Research, 28(2), 345–360.
Yu, Q., Zhang, L., Xu, H., & Chen, Y. (2024). Design thinking and collaborative learning
outcomes in higher education. Computers & Education, 214, 105015.
Zaky, Y. A. M. (2024). Teaching with design thinking in language education. Language
Teaching Research, 28(2), 345–360.