Design in Indian schools

This piece pulls together research and evidence to make a strong case for design in education. It convinces us of why we need to pay attention to design. But, it doesn’t stop there. It goes on to expand on what design really means. As an educational imagination what should our priorities be? And how should they be realized? The piece highlights the different flavours of design education that exist in India and how this subjectivity at an institutional level and at the level of each educator cannot be ignored.

We hope this piece will demonstrate the rigour and background of design in education from the perspective of future readiness.

The landscape of education has changed dynamically in the last couple of decades due to multiple social, economic, and technological changes. Although the basic competencies of reading, writing, and STEM skills are still the backbone of current school education globally, there is a need to prepare children for 21^st century skills. With the advent of technologies like AI, robotics, IOT, machine learning, automation, etc., the skills required for the future are also undergoing a paradigm shift. This shift is also perceived by various global organizations like ‘The World Economic Forum’, ‘The International Society for Technology in Education’, etc. They have unanimously recognized the need to develop creativity, innovation, collaboration, critical thinking, and problem solving as competencies for the future. Incidentally, several of the 21^st century skills and competencies overlap with what is taught in design schools. Apart from aesthetics or form visualization, one of the most critical aspects of the designerly way of thinking is problem identification. Building the ability to identify and creatively solve problems from a young age equips students not only to be future-ready but also fosters resilience and confidence, enabling them to adapt to challenges that have yet to emerge.

School education and its evolution

The evolution of the current education system is long overdue. The primary aim of education was and is to make the child aware about the world around him and it’s functioning. Schools play a pivotal role in imparting education in one’s life. Education plays a pivotal role in preparing for the future and being agile as per the future requirements. The current model of education prevalent in most schools is based on the requirements posed by the Industrial Revolution in the mid-17^th century. Although the model was a perfect fit for those times, it is perhaps not as relevant today. The rapid pace of technological advancements and the emergence of new fields are not only rendering the curriculum outdated but also challenging the effectiveness of traditional pedagogical approaches. We need to identify and apply new pedagogical approaches to develop future competencies in school education and keep the system up to date. The importance of creative thinking in school classrooms has been suggested by many, and numerous studies are also being conducted to evaluate its efficacy from various standpoints^[1][2][3]. Updating the school ecosystem to meet emerging demands appears to be the most plausible approach for ensuring future readiness.

21^st century skills, design education, and schools

Schools are more than a series of test or ‘check boxing’ topics and assignments and they should help in ‘individual development’ and nurturing ‘inner creativity’^[4]. While the basics of reading, writing, mathematics, and science are still needed, inclusion of 21^st century skills in the core curriculum is the need of the hour^[5-7]. The shift from agrarian to industrial economy made changes in how people think, work, and act. The education system responded to the change and focused on a new form of education which aided the industrial age^[17]. As we move from the industrial economy to information economy and head towards the imagination economy, new sets of skills are required and there is a need for the education system to incorporate those changes. A study conducted by Levy et al.^[18], reveals that there is a constant decline in the number of manual and routine tasks performed by the workforce and a substantial increase in abstract tasks since 1960^[18]. The ability to learn, collaborate, and solve problems has become crucial in the information and knowledge economy^[17]. The focus of education should be to teach how ‘to apply’ the concepts learnt rather than memorization and reproduction of facts in tests and examinations. Schools and universities have huge opportunities to combine theory and practice to create an environment where students learn through experience and create value^[19-21]. Attitudes and habits developed at school determine a student’s ability to respond to situations which are difficult, frustrating, and complex in nature^[22].

Design education provides a comparatively more open framework of discussion and two-way communication within the classroom setup. Design education balances both the analytical and creative aspects of learning. Design education inherently covers the major aspects of 21^st century skills. Be it critical thinking, creative thinking, collaboration, problem solving, innovation, design education merges the gap between the creative and analytical mind. In the words of Pacione^[8], “design is like reading, writing, and arithmetic: something everyone should do, everyone can and should be taught to do, and many are starting to do.” The goal of imparting this knowledge is not to encourage everyone to become a designer, but to provide exposure to the subject. Students can be better prepared for the future and solve complex problems, deal with difficult situations if we enable them to think like designers^[9].

Various efforts and approaches have been carried out for inclusion of design education in schools in many countries. One of the core components of design education is divergent thinking, which has been established by many researchers as one of the major elements of creativity^[10-13].

My approach to teaching design in schools

Design education encompasses a range of critical aspects, two of which are problem-solving and aesthetics. During a design thinking workshop I conducted at a school, I observed a common misconception among students: they often equated design with art. This led to a myth that if one is good at art then one must be good at design, and vice versa which is not true.

In contrast, the curriculum I am developing takes a broader view of design. It’s not just about teaching design in schools; it’s about fostering a mindset that connects design with innovation. To truly apply design, students need more than just design knowledge – they must integrate a variety of disciplines to be able to develop a designerly way of thinking.

What became clear to me is that we need to cultivate an innovative mindset rather than focus solely on design education. The key to innovation lies in two core components: creative thinking and imagination.

Rather than introducing design concepts abruptly in later stages, I advocate for building a strong foundation of creativity and imaginative thinking from the earliest grades – starting as early as class 1. By developing these competencies early on, students will be better prepared to absorb and apply design thinking in later years, such as in class 7 or 8.

One of the challenges we previously faced was overwhelming students by teaching design thinking and creative techniques all at once. This often made the process feel like a formula, which hindered understanding. Therefore, it is crucial to build a strong aptitude for creativity and innovation, gradually starting from the basics.

In this approach, design education expands beyond its traditional boundaries. It must be interconnected with imagination, creativity, innovation, and even entrepreneurship. By broadening the scope in this way, we can create a more holistic and effective learning experience that prepares students for the complexities of the future. This, I believe, is how we build a robust competency for innovation.

Different ways of thinking about design education

Design education has been continuously evolving, adapting to the changing needs of society and technology. It all began with the Bauhaus, where the focus was on training craftsmen and emphasizing the form-giving aspect of design. Design, in its early stages, was primarily about shaping objects, giving them form. As time passed and we moved beyond the emphasis on form, the role of thinking in design became more prominent. Today, design is deeply intertwined with solving complex, wicked problems – those that are multifaceted, difficult to define, and require creative, interdisciplinary approaches.

In India, as in many parts of the world, design education varies from institution to institution. This diversity in teaching styles – while neither inherently good nor bad – reflects the unique philosophies and priorities of each school. For example, at the National Institute of Design (NID), there is still a strong focus on craftsmanship, with an emphasis on using design to help underserved communities. On the other hand, at the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), design education leans more towards industrial and product design, with a strong connection to the industry. IIT Delhi, for instance, is highly industry-focused, while IIT Bombay offers a more comprehensive approach, blending creative thinking with industry application.

This diversity in design education is a reflection of how the discipline itself has changed over time. One of the most significant shifts is the rise of user experience (UX) and interface design (UI), which have gained prominence in recent years. As new technologies like AI emerge, it’s hard to predict how design disciplines will evolve, but one thing is clear: design approaches, particularly in problem-solving, will become increasingly crucial. We are moving beyond the form – the aesthetics and functionality of products – and into a phase focused on innovation, where the core goal is to improve people’s lives, not just to create consumer-oriented products.

In many ways, design education in India is still maturing. While there is a growing understanding of design’s role in shaping the future, the focus remains somewhat centered on form-making, which needs to evolve further to encompass broader innovation-driven thinking.

Innovation, to me, is fundamentally about solving real-life problems. For example, I came across a case in a Harvard Business Review book on Innovation that illustrated an innovative approach to problem-solving. It described how, after washing a shirt in a washing machine, a user might notice a lingering stain when folding the shirt. The innovation proposed was to design a washing machine that could detect just the stain and wash just the part where the stain lingers, eliminating the need for the user to rewash the garment. This approach frames innovation not just as a response to customer feedback, but as a way to identify and solve jobs to be done – tasks that need to be simplified and made more efficient.

This idea of approaching innovation through problem identification is one I believe will become more central to design education. It’s not just about applying a formulaic method to a given problem. There are multiple ways to solve a problem, and every approach has its validity. The beauty of design is that there isn’t a single “correct” solution – innovation can be achieved in many different ways, depending on how we define and approach the problem at hand.

In essence, what we need in design education is an understanding that innovation is not a one-size-fits-all process but a mindset – one that encourages creative problem-solving, interdisciplinary thinking, and a deep understanding of the real-world challenges we face. As we move forward, design education will continue to evolve, embracing new methodologies and expanding its scope to ensure that future designers are equipped to tackle the complex problems of tomorrow.

Who and how will this be taught?

One of the biggest challenges in design education is how to get quality teachers. Even in established design colleges, we often struggle with a shortage of skilled educators. This raises an important question: can design education be approached in a way that doesn’t require a traditional teacher?

In today’s age, with the rapid advancement of technologies like AI and the availability of online resources, I believe it is possible to deliver high-quality design education virtually. Platforms like YouTube have shown us how learning can be more self-directed, with the best teachers available online. If we can harness these technologies, teachers may not need to be physically present but could still guide students, helping them understand core design concepts and providing mentorship.

That said, there’s still the question of mapping out what aspects of design need to be taught at school. We don’t need to dive into complex topics like animation or advanced form exercises from day one. Instead, we should focus on what aligns best with future needs – emphasizing creative thinking, problem-solving, and innovation from the start. This approach can ensure that students are well-prepared for the future without overwhelming them with unnecessary complexity early on.

This is the real hurdle in integrating design into school curricula – finding the right teachers, and ensuring they are teaching the right things. While it’s a difficult problem, I think we can start small and build momentum over time. Just like I didn’t know the term design thinking when I was studying design, the discipline has evolved. Back then, we didn’t have a formalized philosophy or steps; the process was intuitive. My mentor, for example, never called it “design thinking,” but his approach focused on understanding the user first and foremost – without labelling it. This is why design teaching is so teacher-specific: design is a vast, ever-evolving field, and each educator brings their own perspective and expertise.

When reviewing curricula, especially for design education in schools, for which a few samples now exist, we often see gaps that need to be addressed, especially in how visual design is approached. In my own experience, visual design – particularly in areas like car styling – was more about aesthetics than problem-solving. The focus was on creating beautiful forms, without much attention to functionality. As I moved forward in my career, I realized that true design innovation goes beyond just aesthetics. While visual design is important, it’s the problem-solving aspect of design that drives progress and makes life better. Design needs to balance both form and function, creating solutions that solve real-world problems.

The curriculum should reflect this balance – teaching both the visual and functional aspects of design in a way that is accessible to students. The fine balance between creativity and functionality will come when experts from various fields come together to validate the curriculum. If we approach the design curriculum with scientific rigor – ensuring that the content is reviewed by eminent scholars and professionals – we can create a framework that is both effective and universally applicable.

The selection of experts is crucial. Just as in scientific research, we need to carefully choose educators who bring diverse perspectives to the table. The questions we ask should be validated, ensuring that the process is grounded in real-world needs. This scientific approach to design education can help remove biases and ensure that the knowledge imparted is truly valuable and generalizable.

Ultimately, what we need in design education is an emphasis on innovation. While the aesthetic aspects of design, such as storytelling and look-and-feel, will always play an important role, innovation should be at the core of what we teach. Innovation is not just about creativity; it’s about solving real problems that people are willing to pay for. The commercial aspect is a crucial part of innovation – it’s not truly innovative if it cannot generate value in the marketplace.

Design curriculum should emulate the design thinking process

What happens in practice is that students often feel something is missing in their education, and they discover it when they enter the industry. They realize they were never taught certain key skills, which often leads to a sense of frustration. This is not a failure of the students, but rather a gap in the curriculum – the basic building blocks are often left out, and that harms students’ ability to innovate or perform effectively in the industry. While industry knowledge can always be picked up over time, the sooner students can start learning the essentials, the better.

So, is design education evolving? Yes, but not in the traditional sense of design thinking, where the process is seen as a linear cycle. In reality, design is more iterative – a circular, evolving process. The challenge is to embrace this non-linear, iterative cycle and allow space for exploration and adaptation.

I noticed this firsthand when I conducted a design thinking workshop with students. Initially, they were skeptical, wondering how long the process would take. But when they got to the prototyping phase, they were so engaged that they lost track of time. It was the act of making that truly excited them. This reinforced my belief that the process should start with making. Begin with quick prototypes and iterative refining, and let the design evolve naturally. The process of design is never really finished – there is always room for improvement, and sometimes other people come in to refine your work further.

Ultimately, the key takeaway is to start. Design is a continuous journey of refinement, and the best way to learn is by diving in, iterating, and improving as you go. So, let’s encourage students to begin creating, to embrace the process from the start, and refine their ideas and our curriculum, as they develop them. This approach will lead to deeper learning, more engaged students, and, ultimately, more innovative outcomes.

References

1. Henriksen, D., Mishra, P., & Mehta, R. (2015). Novel, effective, whole: Toward a NEW framework for evaluations of creative products. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 23(3), 455-478
2. Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. Oxford, UK: Capstone Sternberg
3. Williams, S. D. (2002). Self-esteem and the self-censorship of creative ideas. Personnel Review, 31(4), 495-503. Zhao
4. Kaufman KJ. 21 Ways to 21^st Century Skills: Why Students Need Them and Ideas for Practical Implementation. Kappa Delta Pi Record [Internet]. 2013 Apr 1;49(2):78-83. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2013.786594
5. Larson LC, Teresa Northern Miller. 21^st Century Skills: Prepare Students for the Future [Internet]. Vol. 47, Kappa Delta Pi Record. 2011. p. 121-3. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2011.10516575
6. Oecd, OECD. Education, skills and innovation for a more dynamic, inclusive Latin America [Internet]. Latin American Economic Outlook. 2014. p. 17-8. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/leo-2015-5-en
7. P21 [Internet]. [cited 2022 Jul 15]. Available from: http://www.p21.org/index. php?option=com_content&task=view&id=254&Itemid=120
8. Pacione C. Evolution of the mind: a case for design literacy. Interactions [Internet]. 2010 Mar 1;17(2):6-11. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1145/1699775.1699777
9. Razzouk R, Shute V. What is design thinking and why is it important? Rev Educ Res [Internet]. 2012 Sep;82(3):330-48. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0034654312457429
10. Clapham, M. M. (2011). Testing/measurement/assessment. In S. R. Pritzker, & M. A. Runco (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 458-464). Boston, MA: Academic Press/Elsevier.
11. Milgram, R. M., & Livne, N. L. (2006). Research on creativity in Israel: A chronicle of theoretical and empirical development. In J. C. Kaufman, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The international handbook of creativity (pp. 307-336). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
12. Eyal Doron (2016) Short Term Intervention Model for Enhancing Divergent Thinking among School Aged Children, Creativity Research Journal, 28:3, 372-378, DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2016.1195616
13. Weisberg, R. W. (2006). Creativity: Understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention, and the arts. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
14. Lor R. Design thinking in education: A critical review of literature [Internet]. [cited 2022 Jul 15]. Available from: http://digitalknowledge.cput.ac.za/handle/11189/7810
15. Barlex, D.M., Trebell, D. Design-without-make challenging the conventional approach to teaching and learning in a design and technology classroom. Int J Technol Des Educ 18, 119-138 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-007-9025-5
16. Henriksen, D., Mishra, P., & Fisser, P. (2016). Infusing Creativity and Technology in 21^st Century Education: A Systemic View for Change. Educational Technology & Society, 19 (3), 27-37.
17. Griffin, P., & McGaw, B. (n.d.). és Care, E.(2012): Assessment and teaching of 21^st century skills. springer, New York. DOI.
18. Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2003). The Skill Content of Recent Technological Change: An Empirical Exploration*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1279-1333.
19. Barber, M., Donnelly, K., Rizvi, S., & Summers, L. (2013). An avalanche is coming: Higher education and the revolution ahead. The Institute of Public Policy Research.
20. Christensen, C. M., Johnson, C. W., & Horn, M. B. (2008). Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns (1^st ed.). Mcgraw-Hill.
21. Lor, R. (2017). Design thinking in education: A critical review of literature. https://digitalknowledge.cput.ac.za/bitstream/11189/7810/1/Design%20thinking%20in%20education_%20A%20critical%20review%20of%20literature.pdf
22. Claxton, G. (2018, March 1). Deep rivers of learning. Phi Delta Kappan. SAGE Publications Inc. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721718762422]
23. Dahiya, Kumar. Effect of User Information on Conceptual Design Thinking: A Linkographic Study. Journal of Design Thinking [Internet]. Available from: https://jdt.ut.ac.ir/article_85353.html

Pawan describes himself as a lifelong learner with an overall experience of 15 years in the industry and academia. He has worked as an automotive designer with Maruti Suzuki for over a decade, including two years of rigorous training in Japan. He is passionate about improving school education by introducing design education from an early age. He is building a start-up that helps develop a makers and innovator mindset in children. He is a guest faculty at various colleges like NID (Gandhinagar, Bangalore, Kurukshetra), IITG, IITD, UID, and TDV.