INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume X Issue III March 2026  
Integrating Design Thinking within the R2D2 Instructional Design  
Model: A Pedagogical Framework for Conceptual Design Process in  
Design Education  
Khadija Zia1*, Prof. Shahruddin bin Saleh2, Addy Putra3, Maimuna Akram4  
1Faculty of Educational Sciences and Technology, University Technology Malaysia (UTM), Johor  
Bahru, Malaysia  
2Faculty of Educational Sciences and Technology, University Technology Malaysia (UTM), Johor  
Bahru, Malaysia  
3Addy Putra Md Zulkifli, Faculty of Design and Innovative Technology, Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin  
(UniSZA), Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia  
4Faculty of Educational Sciences and Technology, University Technology Malaysia (UTM), Johor  
Bahru, Malaysia  
*Corresponding Author  
DOI: https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2026.100300290  
Received: 12 March 2026; Accepted: 20 March 2026; Published: 04 April 2026  
ABSTRACT  
Design Thinking is widely adopted in design education to foster creativity and innovation; however, its  
pedagogical implementation often lacks instructional clarity and consistent approaches to learning design and  
assessment. Design Thinking is frequently presented as a sequence of stages, which can obscure the underlying  
learning demands and provide limited guidance for educators. At the same time, instructional design models  
offer structure but are rarely aligned with the iterative and exploratory nature of design learning. This article  
proposes an integrated pedagogical framework that aligns Design Thinking with the ‘Read, Reflect, Display,  
Do’ (R2D2) instructional design model. Using a conceptual framework development approach, Design Thinking  
phases are analysed in terms of their dominant cognitive and social learning demands, while R2D2 is interpreted  
as flexible instructional engagement modes rather than a linear sequence. The framework specifies phase-to-  
mode alignments, associated learning activities, observable learning artefacts, and indicative educator and  
learner roles. By making reflection, representation, and action explicit, the framework supports more coherent  
pedagogy, inclusive participation, and transparent assessment of creativity and innovation in conceptual design  
education.  
Keywords: design thinking pedagogy, instructional design, pedagogical framework, conceptual design  
education.  
INTRODUCTION  
Conceptual design process is a core component of design education, as it shapes how students explore problems,  
generate ideas, and translate abstract concepts into tangible design solutions. However, research shows that  
students often struggle with core activities such as idea generation and problem framing, highlighting the  
pedagogical challenges in teaching this process effectively (Ferreira & Christiaans, 2012; Pan et al., 2010; Xiao  
& Jiang, 2022). Educators are expected to foster creativity and innovation while also providing sufficient  
structure to guide novice learners through complex and often ambiguous design processes (Feng et al., 2025;  
Samaniego et al., 2024). In many design programs, this balance is difficult to achieve, resulting in learning  
experiences that are either overly prescriptive or insufficiently scaffolded (Fitriyah et al., 2025; Oo et al., 2024).  
Page 3894  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume X Issue III March 2026  
In response to these challenges, Design Thinking has gained substantial attention as a pedagogical approach in  
higher education, particularly in design-related disciplines. Design Thinking emphasizes human-centred  
problem solving, iterative exploration, and reflective practice, which closely correspond to key goals commonly  
associated with the conceptual design process in design education (Thuan & Antunes, 2024). Empirical studies  
have shown that Design Thinking-based learning can enhance students’ creative confidence, problem-solving  
ability, (Alt et al., 2023) and engagement (Liu et al., 2023). Despite its growing popularity, Design Thinking in  
higher education is often operationalised as a collection of activities or project-based interventions, with limited  
instructional design coherence and weak articulation of pedagogical structure (Alvarado, 2025; Fitriyah et al.,  
2025). As a result, its educational effectiveness can vary widely depending on educator experience, course  
structure, and institutional context.  
At the same time, instructional design models provide theoretically grounded guidance for structuring learning  
experiences, activities, and assessment (Abuhassna et al., 2024). However, empirical research indicates many  
widely used instructional design models are structured around systematic sequences and predefined stages,  
which can make them relatively slow and less adaptive to dynamic learning demands (Shé et al.,  
2022)(Abuhassna et al., 2024). Additionally, studies of instructional designers demonstrate that traditional  
models often under-conceptualise creativity as a core design principle, further constraining their suitability for  
highly creative learning environments (Cuesta-Hincapie, 2025). This tension has led researchers to call for  
instructional design models that support flexibility, learner agency, and creativity, moving beyond rigid phase-  
based structures toward approaches that align with constructivist learning principles.  
One such approach is the Read, Reflect, Display, Do (R2D2) instructional design model, originally proposed to  
support diverse learners in online and constructivist learning environments (Bonk & Zhang, 2007). R2D2  
emphasizes recursive learning cycles, reflection, visualisation, and active engagement, rather than fixed  
instructional sequences. These characteristics suggest strong theoretical compatibility with the iterative and  
reflective nature of Design Thinking. Nevertheless, while R2D2 has been applied in general higher education  
and online learning contexts to support learner diversity and engagement (Bonk & Zhang, 2007), it has received  
limited attention in design education literature. In particular its potential role in structuring conceptual design  
process and supporting creative pedagogy remains underexplored when compared with more commonly adopted  
frameworks such as Design thinking.  
Current literature therefore reveals a clear gap. On one hand, Design Thinking research rarely engages deeply  
with instructional design theory, leading to pedagogical implementations that lack coherence and replicability  
(Fitriyah et al., 2025). On the other hand, instructional design studies seldom address the specific cognitive and  
creative demands of conceptual design process learning. There is limited work that explicitly integrates Design  
Thinking with a structured yet flexible instructional design model capable of supporting creativity and  
innovation in design education.  
In response to this gap, this paper proposes an integrated pedagogical framework that embeds Design Thinking  
within the R2D2 instructional design model. The study aims to conceptually align the phases of Design Thinking  
with the recursive stages of R2D2, thereby offering a theoretically grounded and pedagogically actionable  
approach to conceptual design process in design education. By bridging creative process theory and instructional  
design, the proposed framework seeks to contribute to ongoing discussions on how design education can better  
support creativity, innovation, and meaningful learning in higher education.  
LITERATURE REVIEW  
Design Thinking in Design and Higher Education  
Design Thinking has been increasingly adopted in higher education as a pedagogical approach aimed at fostering  
creativity, problem-solving, and learner engagement. Originating from professional design practice, it has been  
reframed in educational contexts as a process that emphasizes empathy, iterative exploration, and reflective  
learning (Baker & Moukhliss, 2020). In design education, Design Thinking is often positioned as particularly  
suitable for conceptual design tasks, where problems are ill-defined and multiple solutions are possible. Table 1  
summarises recent empirical studies examining the positive implementation of Design Thinking within design  
Page 3895  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume X Issue III March 2026  
education, highlighting consistent evidence of its impact on creativity, engagement, ideation, and problem  
framing core components of the conceptual design process.  
Table 1- Recent Empirical Studies on Design Thinking in Design Education  
Author(s)  
Year  
& Context  
Key Empirical Findings  
Relevance  
Design Process  
to  
Conceptual  
Higher  
education Significant  
improvement  
in Supports DT as a means to  
Alt (2023)  
(design-related  
creative confidence, perceived strengthen students’ confidence  
courses)  
creativity,  
behaviour  
and  
innovative and  
openness  
during  
early  
conceptual design stages  
University-level  
Increased  
creative  
confidence, Demonstrates  
DT’s  
role  
in  
Liu et al. (2023)  
design  
course  
thinking learning  
engagement,  
and sustaining engagement during  
participation in problem-solving problem exploration and ideation  
tasks  
Design-related  
DT-based  
learning  
enhanced Provides  
cognitive  
evidence  
Lin & Chang  
(2024)  
higher  
education creative output and cognitive supporting DT’s alignment with  
(hands-on DT tasks)  
engagement during ideation tasks  
ideation  
and  
conceptual  
exploration  
Design  
(ideation-focused  
tasks)  
education Improved  
idea  
originality, Directly  
supports  
DT  
Huang et al.  
(2024)  
divergent thinking, and design effectiveness in conceptual idea  
ideation performance  
problem  
generation  
Higher  
education Improved  
framing, Shows DT’s effectiveness in  
Romero-  
(design & innovation collaborative learning, and student managing complex, ill-defined  
courses) engagement design challenges  
Caballero et al.  
(2025)  
Art  
education  
&
design Enhanced collaboration, creative Empirical support for DT-like  
thinking, and idea development practices in collaborative  
quality conceptual design tasks  
Oo et al. (2024)  
Design education  
Strengthened reflective practice, Reinforces DT’s relevance to  
Thuan  
&
iterative  
centred reasoning  
thinking,  
and  
user- reflective and iterative conceptual  
design processes  
Antunes (2024)  
However, recent systematic reviews Table 1 raise important concerns. Despite its growing popularity, the  
pedagogical implementation of Design Thinking in educational settings remains uneven and insufficiently  
theorised. Across a decade of research, studies report substantial variability in how Design Thinking is enacted  
in practice, often focusing on activities, workshops, or projects without clearly articulating the instructional logic  
that underpins them (Fitriyah et al., 2025). Alignment between learning objectives, scaffolding mechanisms,  
reflective learning processes, and assessment practices is also frequently weak or underreported (Alvarado,  
2025; Rojas et al., 2025). Reviews in Table 2 focusing on specific domains, such as STEM and K-12 education,  
similarly highlight the absence of unified pedagogical models and the prevalence of context-dependent  
implementations, which complicates comparison, replication, and transfer across settings (Li & Zhan, 2022; Lin  
et al., 2025). Collectively, these reviews indicate that while Design Thinking is widely used, its pedagogical  
foundations remain only partially theorised, reinforcing the need for clearer instructional structuring without  
undermining its iterative and learner-centred nature.  
Page 3896  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume X Issue III March 2026  
Table 1 Systematic Reviews and Thematic Syntheses on Design Thinking Pedagogy and Implementation  
Reference  
Education  
Context  
Main Focus  
Pedagogical Concerns Identified  
All  
levels  
education DT research trends, Variability of implementation; weak articulation of  
Fitriyah  
(2025)  
methodologies  
learning objectives, scaffolding, assessment; limited  
instructional coherence and replicability  
K-12 education  
Design  
research in K-12  
Thinking Absence of unified pedagogical models; diverse  
interpretations of Design Thinking phases; limited  
large-scale empirical validation; inconsistent  
instructional and assessment practices  
Lin  
(2025)  
et  
al.  
et  
Higher education  
STEM education  
DT  
teaching  
methodology  
as  
active Lack of explicit instructional design integration;  
inconsistent application of DT principles; limited  
pedagogical framing  
Alvarado  
al. (2025)  
DT implementation Contextual differences in implementation; influence of  
patterns  
Rojas et al.  
(2025)  
pedagogy on student outcomes; methodological  
diversity  
General  
education  
DT implementation Trends,  
trends including pedagogical inconsistencies.  
challenges,  
future  
research  
directions  
Mardiah  
(2023)  
K-12  
(primarily  
education Design  
Thinking Non-unified Design Thinking models; strong context  
Li & Zhan  
(2022)  
integrated learning dependence; wide variation in instructional designs;  
STEM-curricula)  
(DTIL)  
contexts  
in  
K-12 inconsistent assessment approaches; limited empirical  
evidence on learning effectiveness  
In light of these concerns table 2, shows the growing need for instructional design approaches that can provide  
clearer pedagogical structure for Design Thinking without constraining its exploratory and iterative nature.  
Several approaches have already attempted to structure design-oriented learning. Traditional instructional design  
models such as ADDIE provide structured, phase-based planning, but were largely developed for well-structured  
domains and can be difficult to reconcile with the non-linear, exploratory character of conceptual design learning  
(Abuhassna et al., 2024). Design-Based Learning has been shown to scaffold iterative project work and authentic  
problem-solving, particularly in engineering-related design contexts, although its implementation remains  
highly contextual and variably articulated (Gómez Puente et al., 2013). Challenge-Based Learning (CBL)  
likewise builds on real-world challenges and collaborative inquiry, but systematic reviews in higher education  
report diverse teaching practices rather than a unified pedagogical model (Leijon et al., 2022)(Galdames-  
Calderón et al., 2024).  
Within design education itself, research highlights that conceptual design learning depends on cycles of  
reflection, external representation, critique, and iteration; yet studio traditions often rely on implicit practices  
and unevenly structured learning processes (Razzouk & Shute, 2012; Wrigley & Mosely, 2022). Collectively,  
these approaches demonstrate that Design Thinking does not operate in a pedagogical vacuum, but they do not  
explicitly organise modes of learner engagement such as information exploration, reflection, external  
representation, and iterative making in ways that directly correspond to the learning demands of Design Thinking  
in conceptual design contexts. This creates space for an integration that foregrounds engagement modes more  
explicitly.  
Instructional Design Models and Creative Learning  
Instructional design models play a central role in structuring learning experiences by aligning objectives,  
activities, and assessment. However, traditional instructional design approaches have largely been developed for  
Page 3897  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume X Issue III March 2026  
well-structured domains, where learning outcomes are clearly defined and progression is linear (Abuhassna et  
al., 2024). Conceptual design learning is exploratory, iterative, and often non-linear, requiring flexibility and  
opportunities for reflection rather than rigid sequencing.  
Recent studies in higher education highlight this mismatch by stating linearity and prescriptive instructional  
structures limits opportunities for experimentation and risk-taking which are essential for creative exploration  
(Oo et al., 2024; Romero Caballero et al., 2025) These critiques point to the need for instructional design models  
that support recursive, divergent representations of knowledge, and learner choice.  
At the same time, abandoning instructional design altogether is not a viable solution. Without pedagogical  
structure, creative learning environments risk becoming fragmented and inequitable, particularly for novice  
learners who lack prior design experience. This tension suggests that creative education requires instructional  
design models that are structured yet flexible, offering guidance without constraining creative exploration.  
The R2D2 Instructional Design Model  
The Read, Reflect, Display, Do (R2D2) instructional design model (figure 1) was proposed to address learner  
diversity and to support constructivist learning environments (Bonk & Zhang, 2008). Unlike linear instructional  
design models, R2D2 is organized around recursive learning modes rather than fixed stages. Each mode ‘reading,  
reflecting, displaying, and doing’, represents a different way of engaging with content and knowledge  
construction.  
Figure 1 Phases of R2D2 Instructional Design Model (Bonk & Zhang, 2008) - Empowering Online Learning:  
100+ Activities for Reading, Reflecting, Displaying, and Doing. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.  
R2D2’s emphasis upon reflection, visualization, engagement and active participation, suggests its potential  
relevance for experiential and design-oriented learning contexts (Haifa & Bin Mubayrik, 2022)(Olivares Garita  
et al., 2019). Despite these pedagogical strengths, existing studies demonstrate applications of R2D2 largely  
concentrated upon online learning and general higher-education contexts with comparatively little work  
examining its potential within design education (Bonk & Zhang, 2008; Haifa & Bin Mubayrik, 2022; Olivares  
Garita et al., 2019).  
Research Gap and Rationale for Integration  
The reviewed literature suggests that the alignment between Design Thinking pedagogy and instructional design  
theory remains partial and variably articulated, rather than entirely absent. Systematic reviews highlight  
variability in how learning objectives, scaffolding mechanism, reflective processes and assessment practices are  
theoretically grounded and explicitly designed (Alvarado, 2025; Fitriyah et al., 2025; Rojas et al., 2025).  
Page 3898  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume X Issue III March 2026  
While emerging approaches such as Design-Based Learning, Challenge-Based Learning and Design-Based  
Research have begun to structure design-oriented pedagogy in meaningful ways (Easterday et al., 2014; Gómez  
Puente et al., 2013), there remains limited work that systematically aligns Design Thinking with an instructional  
design model that explicitly foregrounds recursive reflection, multimodal representation, and learner diversity  
features that are central to conceptual design education. In particular, the integration of Design Thinking within  
the R2D2 framework has not yet been conceptually articulated in design education scholarship.  
Addressing this gap is essential for advancing design pedagogy beyond isolated teaching strategies toward more  
coherent and theoretically grounded learning designs. An integrated R2D2-Design Thinking framework has the  
potential to provide educators with a structured yet flexible approach that supports creativity, innovation, and  
meaningful learning in design education.  
METHODOLOGY  
This study adopts a conceptual framework development approach grounded in theory construction and  
conceptual synthesis, following established procedures for design and development research and qualitative  
theory building in education (Jabareen, 2009; Richey & Klein, 2014). Conceptual framework development is  
appropriate when empirical findings are fragmented and when the research objective is to integrate and  
reorganise existing theoretical constructs into a coherent, pedagogically actionable structure rather than to test a  
causal relationship.  
Rather than evaluating instructional outcomes empirically, the present study aims to clarify pedagogical logic,  
reduce ambiguity in Design Thinking implementation and provide a theoretically defensible framework that can  
guide instructional design and future empirical validation in conceptual design education.  
Framework Development Procedure  
The development of the integrated Design Thinking-R2D2 framework followed a five stage analytical process,  
adapted from (Jabareen, 2009) conceptual framework methodology and instructional design research practices  
(Richey & Klein, 2014).  
Stage 1: Identification of Core Constructs  
Two primary construct sets were identified from the literature:  
(1) Design Thinking pedagogy, conceptualised through commonly adopted phases in educational contexts  
(empathize, define, ideate, prototype, test), and  
(2) R2D2 instructional design model, operationalised through its four instructional engagement modes (Read,  
Reflect, Display, Do).  
Design Thinking was treated not as a prescriptive method but as a set of learning demands embedded within  
conceptual design activities, responding directly to critiques that Design Thinking phases are often used  
descriptively without pedagogical clarification (Baker & Moukhliss, 2020; Fitriyah et al., 2025)  
Stage 2: Analysis of Learning Demands  
Each Design Thinking phase was analysed to identify its dominant cognitive, social, and representational  
learning demands, drawing on design cognition literature and empirical studies in design education. These  
demands included, for example, perspective-taking, problem framing, divergent ideation, representational  
reasoning, iterative making, and evaluative judgment.  
This analytical step reframed Design Thinking from a sequence of activities into a learning demand architecture,  
making explicit the underlying processes required for conceptual design learning.  
Page 3899  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume X Issue III March 2026  
Stage 3: Interpretation of R2D2 as Instructional Modes  
The R2D2 model was interpreted as a non-linear set of instructional engagement modes rather than a fixed  
instructional sequence. Each mode was conceptualised as supporting different forms of knowledge construction:  
Read (information acquisition and interpretation),  
Reflect (sense-making, evaluation, and metacognition),  
Display (external representation and visual reasoning), and  
Do (learning through action and iteration).  
This interpretation preserves R2D2’s constructivist foundations while enabling alignment with the  
iterative nature of conceptual design learning.  
Stage 4: Relational Mapping and Coherence Validation  
Design Thinking learning demands were then mapped to R2D2 instructional modes through iterative relational  
analysis. The mapping was refined using three coherence criteria:  
Construct coherence: alignment at the level of learning theory (e.g., whether reflective modes  
meaningfully support problem framing and evaluative reasoning).  
Pedagogical coherence: feasibility of translating mapped relationships into teachable activities with  
observable outputs.  
Assessment coherence: alignment between expected learning artefacts and commonly used assessment  
approaches in design education, particularly artefact and process-based evaluation of creativity and  
innovation.  
Mappings that failed to meet one or more coherence criteria were revised or rejected.  
Stage 5: Synthesis and Framework Articulation  
The final stage involved synthesising validated mappings into an integrated pedagogical framework. The  
framework specifies:  
aligned Design Thinking learning demands and R2D2 instructional modes,  
representative learning activities,  
observable learning artefacts, and  
indicative educator and learner roles.  
The resulting framework is intended to function as a pedagogical design tool rather than a prescriptive teaching  
method, supporting flexibility, learner diversity, and iterative learning while improving instructional clarity and  
assessment transparency.  
Methodological Positioning and Limitations  
As a conceptual study, this work does not claim empirical effectiveness or causal impact on creativity or  
innovation outcomes. Instead, it provides a theoretically grounded and replicable instructional framework that  
responds directly to persistent critiques of ambiguity and inconsistency in Design Thinking pedagogy. The  
framework (figure 2) is intended to support future design-based research and empirical evaluation in authentic  
Page 3900  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume X Issue III March 2026  
design education settings.  
Explicit Theoretical Propositions/ Design Principles  
Figure 2 Integrated Design Thinking–R2D2 pedagogical framework for conceptual design learning  
Figure 2 presents the integrated Design Thinking–R2D2 pedagogical framework that structures conceptual  
design learning through the alignment of learning demands and instructional modes. Rather than viewing Design  
Thinking as a fixed procedural sequence, the framework conceptualises each phase ‘empathise, define, ideate,  
prototype, and test’ as representing dominant cognitive, social, and representational learning demands. These  
include understanding users and contexts, framing and reframing problems, generating and reasoning about  
alternatives, iteratively constructing solutions, and interpreting feedback.  
These learning demands are supported through the R2D2 instructional design model, which is interpreted as a  
set of four non-linear learning engagement modes: Read (information exploration and meaning-making), Reflect  
(interpretation, evaluation, and metacognition), Display (external representation, visual reasoning, and  
communication), and Do (learning through action, iteration, and making). The mapping illustrated in Figure 2  
therefore operates as a responsive instructional scaffold: rather than pushing learners through predetermined  
steps, it enables educators to activate appropriate instructional modes in response to evolving demands of  
conceptual design work. The circular and iterative structure of the diagram emphasises that movement across  
both Design Thinking phases and R2D2 modes is recursive and dynamic, allowing learners to cycle repeatedly  
between understanding, ideation, representation, and iteration as their design ideas develop.  
Following this conceptual explanation, Table 3 translates the framework into a pedagogically actionable  
structure. It specifies, for each mapped element, exemplary learning activities, observable artefacts, indicative  
educator roles, learner responsibilities, and assessment implications. In doing so, Table 3 operationalises the  
conceptual integration shown in Figure 2 and demonstrates how the framework can be implemented in authentic  
studio-based and blended learning environments.  
Page 3901  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume X Issue III March 2026  
Table 2- Mapping Design Thinking Learning Demands to R2D2 Instructional Modes  
Design  
Thinking  
Phase  
Primary Learning Primary  
Supportive  
R2D2  
Mode(s)  
Representative  
Learning  
Activities  
Observable  
Learning Artefacts  
/ Outputs  
Needs  
R2D2  
Mode(s)  
Perspective  
taking;  
User  
research User  
profiles;  
Empathize  
Read  
Reflect  
interpretation of user  
review;  
observation  
analysis;  
interpretation;  
reflective  
empathy  
annotated  
persona observations;  
maps;  
context;  
making;  
awareness  
sense-  
bias  
reflective notes  
journaling  
Problem  
framing;  
Insight clustering; Problem statements;  
Define  
Reflect  
Display  
synthesis;  
framing  
“How  
might  
we”  
justification; critical  
reflection  
discussions;  
opportunity  
statement  
questions;  
framing diagrams  
concept  
development  
Divergent thinking;  
representational  
Sketching; concept Idea  
mapping; concept  
brainstorming with morphological  
visual prompts; charts; scenario  
rapid enactment storyboards  
sketches;  
boards;  
Ideate  
Prototype  
Test  
Display  
Do  
reasoning;  
idea  
comparison  
Learning  
action;  
through  
iteration;  
Rapid prototyping; Physical/digital  
mock-ups; material prototypes; process  
Do  
Display  
Read / Do  
material reasoning  
exploration;  
iterative  
documentation;  
iteration logs  
refinement  
Evaluation; feedback  
interpretation;  
decision-making;  
iteration  
User  
feedback Evaluation  
notes;  
Reflect  
sessions;  
critique revised prototypes;  
discussions;  
revision cycles  
testing  
design rationale  
insights;  
Theoretical Propositions of the Design Thinking-R2D2 Framework  
Based on the conceptual synthesis and coherence analysis, the integrated DT–R2D2 framework advances the  
following pedagogical propositions for conceptual design education:  
Proposition 1:  
Conceptual design learning is best supported when instructional design responds to learning demands  
rather than enforcing phase-based progression.  
Rather than treating Design Thinking as a linear or cyclical procedure, the framework conceptualises its phases  
as expressions of dominant learning demands. Instructional effectiveness is enhanced when educators select  
instructional modes (reading, reflecting, displaying, doing) in response to these demands, enabling iterative  
movement across understanding, ideation, representation, and evaluation.  
Page 3902  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume X Issue III March 2026  
Proposition 2:  
Creativity in conceptual design emerges through deliberate alternation between external representation  
and reflective sense-making.  
The framework highlights the pedagogical importance of the “Display” and “Reflect” modes in supporting  
creative cognition. External representations such as sketches, diagrams, and prototypes function not merely as  
outputs but as thinking tools that enable critique, comparison, and reframing. Reflection, when designed as an  
instructional activity rather than an implicit expectation, strengthens evaluative judgment and creative decision  
making.  
Proposition 3:  
Design Thinking pedagogy becomes instructionally scalable when embedded within a flexible  
instructional design architecture.  
Embedding Design Thinking within the R2D2 instructional design model provides a scalable pedagogical  
architecture that can be adapted across studio-based, blended, and technology-enhanced learning environments  
without constraining iterative exploration.  
Discussion: Pedagogical Implications of the Integrated Design Thinking–R2D2 Framework  
Scope and Conditions of Use of the DT–R2D2 Framework  
The DT–R2D2 framework is designed primarily for contexts where conceptual design learning requires iterative  
problem framing, ideation, representation, and prototyping. It is particularly suitable for studio-based and  
blended learning environments in higher education, where students are expected to engage in reflective practice,  
produce external representations of ideas, and iterate through multiple solution pathways. The framework  
assumes instructional settings where learners have opportunities to engage in guided critique, visual thinking,  
and iterative making, rather than highly prescriptive task completion.  
The framework is most applicable for novice-to-intermediate design learners who benefit from explicit  
instructional structuring of reflection, representation, and action. Advanced professional designers may require  
more domain-specific or discipline-embedded adaptations. While the framework can be translated into online  
and technology-enhanced environments, successful use requires deliberate design of reflection prompts,  
representation tools, and feedback mechanisms. It is not intended for purely procedural or skills-training contexts  
where outcomes are fixed and creativity or problem framing are not central learning objectives.  
Clarifying these boundary conditions ensures that the framework is not positioned as universally prescriptive,  
but as a flexible pedagogical architecture that supports conceptual design learning where iterative thinking,  
reflection, and multimodal engagement are pedagogically necessary  
Structuring Conceptual Design Learning without Reducing Iteration  
A recurring challenge in Design Thinking education is the tension between structure and openness. While Design  
Thinking is valued for its iterative and exploratory nature, educational implementations often oscillate between  
being overly prescriptive or insufficiently scaffolded. The proposed framework addresses this tension by treating  
Design Thinking phases as expressions of learning demands rather than as instructional steps, while positioning  
R2D2 as a flexible instructional structure that responds to these demands.  
By aligning Design Thinking phases with R2D2 instructional modes, the framework offers educators a way to  
design learning experiences that are structured without being linear. Instructional decisions are guided by  
dominant learning demands, such as sense-making, representation, or action, rather than by rigid phase  
progression. This supports iterative movement between understanding, ideation, and evaluation, which is central  
to conceptual design learning.  
Page 3903  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume X Issue III March 2026  
Educator and Learner Roles  
The framework also clarifies the distribution of agency between learners and educators. Design Thinking is  
positioned as learner-driven, emphasising student engagement with complex design problems and decision-  
making processes. In contrast, R2D2 functions as an instructor-scaffolded layer that structures engagement  
through reading, reflection, representation, and action.  
This distinction is pedagogically important because it counters the assumption that Design Thinking naturally  
leads to effective learning without deliberate instructional design. By making the educator’s role explicit, as a  
designer of learning modes rather than a director of outcomes, the framework supports more intentional  
facilitation, particularly in early design education contexts where students may lack prior experience.  
Strengthening Reflection, Representation, and Inclusive Participation  
The integration of R2D2 strengthens several pedagogical mechanisms that are often weakly implemented in  
Design Thinking courses. Reflection, for example, is frequently encouraged but rarely designed as an explicit  
instructional activity. The framework positions reflection as a continuous mode of engagement, supported  
through critique protocols, reflective prompts, and decision documentation, rather than as an implicit  
expectation.  
Similarly, the framework reinforces the role of external representation in conceptual design learning. By  
explicitly foregrounding representation through the “Display” mode, the framework emphasises sketches,  
diagrams, prototypes, and other artefacts as central thinking tools. This reduces the risk of Design Thinking  
being enacted primarily through discussion or verbal reasoning, which can limit critical engagement and critique.  
Importantly, the use of multiple instructional modes also supports learner diversity. Traditional Design Thinking  
pedagogy often advantages students who are confident communicators or who possess prior design experience.  
By offering multiple pathways for engagement and expression, the DT–R2D2 framework reduces reliance on a  
hidden curriculum and supports more equitable participation across diverse learner profiles.  
Implications for Learning Outcomes and Assessment  
The framework also has direct implications for how learning outcomes and assessment are conceptualised in  
Design Thinking education. While empirical studies suggest that Design Thinking can support creative  
confidence and innovative behaviour (Alt et al., 2023)(Liu et al., 2023), such outcomes are contingent on how  
learning is designed and assessed. Broad claims of creativity are difficult to operationalise and evaluate without  
clear pedagogical anchors.  
By making expected learning artefacts explicit at different stages of the design process, such as problem framing  
statements, ideation portfolios, prototype iterations, and reflective testing insights; the framework supports more  
transparent and consistent assessment practices. These artefacts provide observable evidence of learning  
processes and decision-making, enabling assessment approaches that move beyond self-reported creativity or  
subjective impressions. In this way, the framework responds directly to critiques that Design Thinking research  
often lacks clear operationalisation of learning outcomes and relies on loosely defined indicators of creativity  
and innovation (Alvarado, 2025; Fitriyah et al., 2025).  
Theoretical Implications of the DT–R2D2 Framework  
Implications for Instructional Design Theory  
The DT–R2D2 framework contributes to instructional design theory by illustrating how instructional structure  
can be conceived not as a prescriptive sequence but as a set of responsive engagement modes aligned with  
evolving learning demands. By positioning Design Thinking as a learner-driven creative process and R2D2 as  
an instructor-designed pedagogical scaffold, the framework challenges dominant assumptions that instructional  
design necessarily implies linear progression. Instead, it supports an understanding of instructional design as an  
Page 3904  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume X Issue III March 2026  
adaptive architecture that enables iterative movement between understanding, ideation, representation, and  
evaluation. This re-conceptualisation strengthens arguments for flexible, constructivist instructional design  
models capable of supporting creative, ill-structured learning environments.  
Implications for Creativity Research in Design Education  
The framework also deepens theoretical understanding of how creativity develops in conceptual design learning.  
By highlighting the deliberate alternation between external representation (“Display”) and reflective sense-  
making (“Reflect”), it reinforces the view that creativity is not solely a product of divergent thinking, but emerges  
through cycles of articulation, critique, reframing, and decision-making. In doing so, the framework positions  
sketches, diagrams, prototypes, and reflective artefacts not merely as outputs but as cognitive instruments that  
mediate creative reasoning. This contributes to broader discussions in creativity research that call for more  
explicit theorisation of how instructional structures shape creative processes rather than assuming creativity  
emerges naturally from open-ended activity.  
Implications for Assessment Theory in Design Education  
Finally, the DT–R2D2 framework offers theoretical implications for assessment in design education by  
conceptualising assessable artefacts as integral components of the learning process rather than post-hoc evidence  
of outcomes. By aligning observable artefacts with specific learning demands and instructional modes, the  
framework provides a basis for theorising assessment as an embedded, process-sensitive practice that can capture  
how students frame problems, iterate ideas, justify decisions, and reflect on testing outcomes. This perspective  
contributes to ongoing debates about how creativity and innovation can be meaningfully evaluated in design  
education, moving beyond self-reported perceptions toward authentic, artefact-based assessment grounded in  
clearly articulated pedagogical intentions.  
Contribution to Design Education and Future Directions  
Taken together, the DT–R2D2 framework contributes to design education by offering a pedagogically grounded  
approach to integrating creative processes with instructional design principles. Rather than proposing a new  
Design Thinking model, the framework reframes existing practices through an instructional lens that clarifies  
learning demands, supports diverse learners, and strengthens assessment coherence. While the framework is  
conceptual in nature, it provides a foundation for future empirical research examining its implementation in  
studio-based, technology-enhanced, learning environments. Future studies may explore how the framework  
influences creativity, innovation, engagement, and learning outcomes across different design education contexts.  
REFERENCES  
1. Abuhassna, H., Adnan, M. A. B. M., & Awae, F. (2024). Exploring the synergy between instructional  
design models and learning theories: A systematic literature review. Contemporary Educational  
Technology, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/14289  
2. Alt, D., Kapshuk, Y., & Dekel, H. (2023). Promoting perceived creativity and innovative behavior:  
Benefits of future problem-solving programs for higher education students. Thinking Skills and  
Creativity, 47, 101201. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TSC.2022.101201  
3. Alvarado, L. F. (2025). Design thinking as an active teaching methodology in higher education: a  
systematic  
review.  
Frontiers  
in  
Education,  
10,  
1462938.  
https://doi.org/10.3389/FEDUC.2025.1462938/BIBTEX  
4. Baker, F. W., & Moukhliss, S. (2020). Concretising Design Thinking: A Content Analysis of Systematic  
and Extended Literature Reviews on Design Thinking and Human-Centred Design. Review of Education,  
8(1), 305–333. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3186  
5. Bonk, C. ., & Zhang, K. (2008). Empowering Online Learning: 100+ Activities for Reading, Reflecting,  
Displaying and Doing. https://hubl.hu.nl/archive/file/18178  
6. Bonk, C. J., & Zhang, K. (2007). Introducing the R2D2 Model: Online Learning for the Diverse Learners  
of This World. Distance Education, 27(2), 249–264.  
7. Cuesta-Hincapie, C. (2025). Discovering the meaning of creativity in instructional design. A co-creation  
Page 3905  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume X Issue III March 2026  
and concept mapping approach. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 0123456789.  
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-025-09996-9  
8. Easterday, M. W., Lewis, D. R., & Gerber, E. (2014). Design-based research process: Problems, phases,  
and applications problems arising from the ill-definition of DBR. Proceedings of the International  
Conference of the Learning Sciences, 317--324.  
9. Feng, X., Figueiredo, S., Mattila, P., Keskinen, M., & Björklund, T. (2025). Navigating Dilemmas:  
university educators’ journeys in creativity teaching. Teaching in Higher Education, 30(5), 1235–1255.  
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2024.2436359  
10. Ferreira, J., & Christiaans, H. (2012). Teaching conceptual design teaching conceptual design.  
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENGINEERING AND PRODUCT DESIGN EDUCATION,  
September, 81–88.  
11. Fitriyah, I. J., Saputro, S., & Sajidan. (2025). Research Trends in Design Thinking Education: A  
Systematic Literature Review from 2014 to 2024. European Journal of Educational Research, 14(2),  
381–391. https://doi.org/10.12973/EU-JER.14.2.381  
12. Galdames-Calderón, M., Stavnskær Pedersen, A., & Rodriguez-Gomez, D. (2024). Systematic Review:  
Revisiting Challenge-Based Learning Teaching Practices in Higher Education. Education Sciences,  
14(9), 1008. https://doi.org/10.3390/EDUCSCI14091008/S1  
13. Gómez Puente, S. M., Van Eijck, M., & Jochems, W. (2013). A sampled literature review of design-  
based learning approaches: A search for key characteristics. International Journal of Technology and  
Design Education, 23(3), 717–732. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10798-012-9212-X/TABLES/5  
14. Haifa, F. A., & Bin Mubayrik, N. M. H. (2022). Al-Mutairi at Education Research International in.  
https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/6775052  
15. Jabareen, Y. (2009). Building a Conceptual Framework: Philosophy, Definitions, and Procedure.  
International  
Journal  
of  
Qualitative  
Methods  
,
8(4),  
49–62.  
https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800406/ASSET/B6B6449D-88E1-4ABC-9916-  
EF26EB904492/ASSETS/IMAGES/LARGE/10.1177_160940690900800406-FIG1.JPG  
16. Leijon, M., Gudmundsson, P., Staaf, P., & Christersson, C. (2022). Challenge based learning in higher  
education– A systematic literature review. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 59(5),  
609–618. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.1892503  
17. Li, T., & Zhan, Z. (2022). A Systematic Review on Design Thinking Integrated Learning in K-12  
Education. Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 12(16). https://doi.org/10.3390/app12168077  
18. Lin, L., Shen, S., Shadiev, R., & Yu, M. (2025). Review of research on design thinking in K-12 education.  
Educational Research Review, 47, 100682. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EDUREV.2025.100682  
19. Liu, Y.-L. E., Lee, T.-P., & Huang, Y.-M. (2023). Enhancing university students’ creative confidence,  
learning motivation, and team creative performance in design thinking using a digital visual collaborative  
environment. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 50, 101388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101388  
20. Olivares Garita, C., Brenes Sánchez, V., & Valverde Marín, E. (2019). R2D2: An effective model to  
incorporate ICTs in the EFL classroom? Actualidades Investigativas En Educación, 20(1), 32.  
https://doi.org/10.15517/AIE.V20I1.40098  
21. Oo, T. Z., Kadyirov, T., Kadyjrova, L., & Józsa, K. (2024). Design-based learning in higher education:  
Its effects on students’ motivation, creativity and design skills. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 53,  
101621. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TSC.2024.101621  
22. Pan, R., Kuo, S. P., & Strobel, J. (2010). Novice students’ difficulties and remedies with the  
conceptualization phase of design. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings.  
https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--16358  
23. Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What Is Design Thinking and Why Is It Important? Review of  
Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457429  
24. Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2014). Design and Developtnent Research: Methods, Strategies, and Issues.  
Design  
and  
Developtnent  
Research:  
Methods,  
Strategies,  
and  
Issues,  
1–180.  
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203826034/DESIGN-DEVELOPMENT-RESEARCH-RITA-RICHEY-  
JAMES-KLEIN/RIGHTS-AND-PERMISSIONS  
25. Rojas, D. G. R., Rangel, Y. N., & Mora, D. M. (2025). Implementing Design Thinking in STEM  
Education: A Systematic Review of Trends and Challenges. International Journal of Instruction, 18(4),  
111–130. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2025.1847a  
Page 3906  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume X Issue III March 2026  
26. Romero Caballero, S., Canquiz Rincón, L., Rodríguez Toscano, A., Valencia Pérez, A., & Moreno  
Gómez, G. (2025). Challenge-based learning and design thinking in higher education: Institutional  
strategies for linking experiential learning, innovation, and academic performance. Innovations in  
Education and Teaching International, 62(2), 557–574. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2024.2326191  
27. Samaniego, M., Usca, N., Salguero, J., & Quevedo, W. (2024). Creative Thinking in Art and Design  
Education:  
A
Systematic  
Review.  
Education  
Sciences,  
14(2),  
192.  
https://doi.org/10.3390/EDUCSCI14020192/S1  
28. Shé, C. N., 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.  
https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.6667  
29. Thuan, N. H., & Antunes, P. (2024). A conceptual model for educating design thinking dispositions.  
International  
Journal  
of  
Technology  
and  
Design  
Education,  
34(5),  
1879–1902.  
https://doi.org/10.1007/S10798-024-09881-X/FIGURES/3  
30. Wrigley, C., & Mosely, G. (2022). Design Thinking Pedagogy: Facilitating Innovation and Impact in  
Tertiary Education. Design Thinking Pedagogy: Facilitating Innovation and Impact in Tertiary  
Education,  
1–223.  
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003006176/DESIGN-THINKING-PEDAGOGY-  
CARA-WRIGLEY-GENEVIEVE-MOSELY/RIGHTS-AND-PERMISSIONS  
31. Xiao, Y., & Jiang, C. (2022). Industrial designers’ thinking in the stage of concept generation for social  
design: themes, strategies and modes. In International Journal of Technology and Design Education (Vol.  
33, Issue 1). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09732-7  
Page 3907  
www.rsisinternational.org