POLITECNICO DI MILANO

DIPARTIMENTO DI DESIGN
Dottorato di ricerca in Design
coordinatore Prof. Luca Guerrini
ciclo: 31
avanzamento

DESIGN THINKING AS A DRIVEN FOR

VIETNAMESE INTERIOR DESIGN EDUCATION

Dottorando: PHAM TU NGOC

Relatore: Prof. Davide Fassi

Area di ricerca: Interior Design
 Index

Abstract
Acknowledgement
List of tables
List of figures

Chapter 1: Introduction
- Problem of the statement
- Aim and Scope of the study
- Outline of the study

Chapter 2: Current situation of Vietnamese Education

- Introduction
- The historical lineages of Vietnam’s education system
- The organization and operation of Vietnam’s education system
- Higher education in Vietnam

Chapter 3: Elaborating a conceptual framework of the study

- Interior Design definition as a profession
- Interior Design within the Vietnamese context
- Interior Design in education
Interior Design education in International context
Interior Design education in Vietnamese context

Chapter 4: Literature review

- Theoretical framework of Design Thinking approach
- Antecedents of Design Thinking
- Contemporary Design Thinking
- Design Thinking in Education
- Design Thinking in Interior Design
Chapter 5: Methodology
- Research questions
- Research Design
- Population
- Procedure
Interview part
Overview
Goals
Interview protocol
Sample
Data analysis
Limitation
Participatory Action Research
Overview
Goals
Research methods
Implementation
Data analysis
Limitation
- Personal reflections on applying Design Thinking approach in Interior Design education

Chapter 6: Results and Findings

Chapter 7: Analysis and Conclusion

 Abstract
In the last few years seen as the booming of “Design for Change”, the platform has witnessed
an exploration of interest in “Design Thinking”, nationally and internationally. In the sector of
education, Design thinking is recognized as a student-centered learning approach which
provides great tools and methods for educators to deploy in their classrooms and schools. This
research aims to study how a design educator can apply the use of “Design Thinking” discipline
into Vietnamese Interior Design education, with especially practical focus on the Architecture
and Planning Faculty of NUCE University, Vietnam. This research is also one part of the
national project with the purpose of improving the quality of teaching and learning interior design
in higher education funded by VIED (Vietnam Institute Education Development).

In order to comply with the objective, this study indicated multi-research strategies. Data were
collected by qualitative research methods from diverse sources, such as books, journals,
documentary evidences, in-depth interview and class observation. Otherwise, based on the
strategy of Participatory Action Research, a group of participants in NUCE University was
selected to experimental test with a new teaching model in order to clarify the change in the
system. All data were analyzed according to grounded theory techniques in a spiral manner in
which new data lead to new categorizations, leading to reanalysis of the previous data.

The research findings offer a unifying multidimensional conceptual framework to analyze and
discuss Design Thinking generation process and thus develop the theoretical contribution of the
study. The research also suggest pedagogical implications, as the findings demonstrate ways in
which design educators can encourage their students to generate innovative ideas, effective
interaction in study and getting more benefits from the new student-centered learning discipline.
1. Theoretical and critical assumptions and scientific-project context reference

Introduction of Design Thinking

The upcoming of generations of university graduates will be inheriting the most complex world
of opportunities and challenges that has ever existed. Professionals in many designs,
engineering, and other related fields will be forced to adapt to rapid change in our environment
and resources constraints, and presumably in our social structures as well. It is needed to give
the builders of the future the tools to address emerging problem effectively and collaboratively,
without preconceived frames of the problems to be solved or the limits of their expertise in
solving them (Cupps, 2014).

According to Campos (2015), Design Thinking has been gaining increased attention as a
definable process that allow rapid, innovative, and user-centric problem solving, much in tune
with the rapid pace of change in a technology-driven world. Numerous designers and theorists
have weighed in on this concept, and programs such as Stanford University’s graduate-level d.
School have developed it as a practical curriculum that has immediate impacts on a world much
in need of “out-of-the-box” thinkers.

It is believed by Howard (2015) that, Design Thinking has evolved conceptually and widened in
scope over the past half century. It’s foundation lie in the design methods movement within
design research, which sought to understand how designers think, making decisions and
solving problems (Buchanan, 1992; Jones,1970). From these foundations, Design Thinking
evolved to understand as a more generalized concept to solve complex problems in designing
tangible objects and intangible systems (Buchanan, 1992; Kimbell, 2009).

In the early 21st century, a new articulation of Design Thinking as an approach for innovation
rose to prominence within business and management disciplines. It is this perspective of Design
Thinking as a creative method to solve contemporary and strategic business with or within
organizations (Brown, 2008; Dunne and Martin, 2006; Kimble, 2011; Martin, 2009). Moreover,
Lindberg, Noweaki and Meinel (2010) refer to Design Thinking as a meta-discourse for
multidisciplinary teams. Over the past decade it is this conceptualization of Design Thinking
which has extremely consideration in business and different contexts for human-centered
innovation (Banathy, 1996; Bell, 2008; Brown, 2008; Brown and Wyatt, 2010; Duncan and
Breslin, 2009; Georges and Romme, 2003; Holloway, 2009; Jenkins, 2008). In summary,
Design Thinking for the aim of this research is defined as a human-centered and creative
approach for problem solving and innovation.

Design Thinking in Education

The 21st –Century Learning and teaching movement is an effort by business leaders, policy
makers, and educators to provide students with the skills necessary for success in a rapidly
changing global and technology-driven society (Schoen and Fusarelli, 2008). This latest reform
is in response to the transition from a primarily industrial-based economy to a knowledge-based
one. Due to the increase in global competition, during which wider access and usage of new
products and services required to stay ahead of the curve, the simultaneous and continuous
education and training on these new products and services is paramount. Therefore, the cycle
of knowledge is rotating faster than ever before (Cernetic, 2012). In addressing the concerns of
global competition, education has become one of the important sectors, and the restructuring of
education policy and educational achievement are being demanded (Bellanca and Brandt,
2010; Karoly and Panis, 2004; Yan Yan; 2010).

Creating opportunities for innovation to occur within the field of education is critical work for
today’s education leaders (Bellanca and Brandt, 2010; Christensen, Johnson and Horn, 2008;
Finn and Horn, 2013; MacCharen, Song and Martens, 2011; Schlechty, 2009). Universities and
schools are faced with developing new strategies to address the rapid changes and reform
initiatives like 21st- Century Learning while simultaneously continuing to meet the everyday
demands (Schoen and Fusarelli, 2008). Unfortunately, educational institutions have historically
innovated using systematic and sustaining innovative processes, which are incremental and do
not require much in terms of systematic change (Christensen, 2008; Duffy, Reigeluth, Solomon,
Caine, Carr-Chellman, Almeida, DeMars, 2006; Norris, 2012). To accomplish the transformation
called for by the current economic paradigm and the 21st- Century Learning reform movement,
universities and schools will need to undergo systemic change, as well as introduce innovation
that are disruptive to many of the current processes served by the present arrangement of
schools (Duffy, 2016; Christensen, 2008; McCharen, 2011; Schlechty, 2009).

Currently, new approaches to innovation are prototyped in many educational organizations,

therefore changing the business model and creating spaces for new orientations within
education institutions (Norris, 2012). One such example is the strategic application of Design
Thinking. Well received within the business world, Design Thinking has been recognized as a
driver of innovation within product design for a long time and it has recently been acknowledge
as an effective approach for creating systemic change (Gloppen, 2009; Rice, 2011).
Accordingly, Design Thinking has the potential to be a effective tool for systemic change in
education as well (Chance, 2010; Rice, 2011).

Model of Design Education

According to Kolko (2012), there are three common models of design education related to
innovation. First of all start with Bauhaus model which is predicted on a common core
curriculum of foundation design and art study often in a design studio. In this model, the learning
method of students is considered as a “hand-on” experience focusing on touching on craft and
the creation of artifacts from posters to websites.

The second one which is called by the name of Integrated Product Development model which
takes into account of business concern and is based on the activity of collaboration among
students, engineers and marketers as a product team in order to emulate real-world context and
usually connects with the industry (Kolko, 2012).

The final but most relevant to innovation is the Design Thinking model which extremely focuses
on empathy and divergent thinking. This approach is usually seen in a collaborative form and
interdisciplinary methods. Cupps (2014) indicated several insinuations which have deployed
Design Thinking programs in the last few years noticed by d. School which spearhead by
IDEO’s David Kelly. Moreover, there are a number of others as well who have embraced a
Design Thinking approach as opposed to traditional approaches.

Design Thinking in Interior Design

The interior design is now changing its process in order to create truly engaging work. Dohr and
Portillo (2011) believe that designers are developing a deeper and broader conceptualization of
how design theory, research and existing practice can help them making a better decision in
their works. At the same time the profession is becoming increasingly collaborative. Designers
today are believed to work much closer with other professionals such as architects, landscape
designers, product designers, anthropologists and business consultants in novel ways noticed
by engaging and expanding network of experts in the design process more than ever before. All
of these activities can be concluded in Design Thinking process.
2. Research scope, theme and design focus

In Vietnam, the definition and the scope of interior design services have been adapted by the
training program of interior design. By 2014, the number of interior design universities has
increased to 15 in both public and private system. Along with the increase in the quantity is
followed by the debates, regarding the structure of the design discipline and the quality of its
education and the necessity of interior design as a profession. Unfortunately, currently there is
exist architect’s certificate of practice issued by the Vietnamese Association of Architects but not
available for interior designers (Luong, 2016). It is not difficult to see the direct responsibility of
Vietnamese architects for creating almost all the facets of architectural and the built
environment. A graduate student at architectural universities can work in different sectors
including architecture, interior design, landscape design, planning and even graphic design.
This problem leads to the uncertainty in most design curricula content, to inconsistency in
education considering the instruction and evaluation criterion and defines a vulnerable area of
expertise for the interior design graduates.

According to Nutter (2001), interior design has been consisted rather distinctively from
architecture and fine arts (starting in the beginning of the 20th century in America) as a separate
profession with its own amount and level of experience and education. However, in the context
of Vietnam, despite the increase in both the number and the quality of interior design schools,
the design program structures and practical realm of interior design have not yet to be
distinguishable and separated from industrial fine arts and architecture. Besides, the profession
is still referred to or associated with the term “decoration” and also described as a subset of
architecture. Obviously, Cuong (2014) indicated that instead of the term interior design, the
program and curriculum in Vietnam now may refer to 3 different disciplines within industrial fine
arts, architecture and furnishing work. Also according to the study, 75% of interior design
courses offered by industrial fine arts departmental home, 20% related to architectural
department and 5% belongs to furniture design. Hao (2015) indicated that students and faculty
from each of three categories above often suppose their training program have taken the best
place. For example, individuals involved with program of interior design related to architecture
(HoChiMinh university of Architecture and National University of Civil Engineering) often
conceptualize their programs as the strongest, and those with departmental home in furnishing
work as weakest and these affiliated with industrial fine arts as lacking practical professional or
technical skills. Conversely, individuals involved in interior design related to industrial fine arts
(Hanoi Architectural of University and Hanoi University of Industrial Fine Arts) often generalize
program affiliated with architecture as too much technical or mechanical with less artistic and
creativity.

However, in reality, it is not easy to determine which programs of 3 types above dominant than
others. Many common conceptions exist and often serve to distort the reality of true qualities of
a program (Nutter, 2001). For instance, common conception of interior design program located
in industrial fine arts department perceived as very creative and artistic which having a higher
entrance requirement for artistic ability (most often evaluated through drawing skills); with a
higher number of required courses in the area of studios, art history, color theory, handcraft
materials and decoration in contrast with a low number of required courses in drafting,
environmental systems and technical skills. Program of interior design located in an
architectural departmental home includes certain assumptions such as the program being
exceptionally rigorous of difficult, having higher entrance requirements; having more emphasis
on professional practice; consisting of higher numbers of required courses in the area of
environmental systems, lighting, materials, structures, architectural detailing and construction
documents and lacking in artistic creativity, thus having lower number of required courses in the
field of finishing selections, textiles and decorative rendering. The last interior design programs
affiliated with department of furnishing work are often perceived as emphasizing residential
interiors, regarding in the area of textiles, color theory, furniture design, ergonomics and
manufacturing.

It is dedicated by Tural (2006) that each interior design program has a different emphasis
because of the target of the institution and department as well as a focus of the faculty. Similarly
in Vietnam, the universities which providing interior design courses are by no means the same
in training, but their curriculum descriptions express similar functions of profession, such as the
design of enclosed spaces in building (Hanoi architectural of University), the creation of the
environments that human would live in a physically and psychologically satisfied situation
(HoChiMinh city University of Architecture), manipulation of interior spaces with special attention
to materials, color and textures (Hanoi University of Industrial Fine Arts), conceiving spaces to
enhance the quality of life and to increase productivity and to produce health and safety
(Hoasen University).
In recent 5 years, some universities in Vietnam have attracted large amount of investment as
well as lot of outstanding lecturers coming back from abroad. They have determined their own
strategies and initially achieved certain remarkable success. To illustrate, the Ho Chi Minh city
University of Architecture has integrated architectural knowledge in their curriculum. Ton Duc
Thang University has developed their specialized curriculum based on equivalent teaching
structures of the top 100 universities of the world, namely University of Cincinnati, University of
Central Oklahoma ... Additionally, despite of being officially established three years ago, the
Department of Interior Design in the school of Architecture and Planning of the University of
Construction has implemented the model of design thinking into their curriculum.

However, as mentioned before, there are 75% of interior design program located in Industrial
Fine Arts sharing the similar framework of 5-years studying which focusing much more on
decoration rather than on creation and new solutions generating. In addition, there has been a
little of cooperation in training, scientific research and technology transfer among the
universities in Vietnam. On the other hand, the current cooperation has not been recognized as
effective. The field of Architecture has created the useful playground for the students as well as
architects, but we cannot witness the similar activities in the field of interior design. Most of
people getting a Ph.D. or the title of Professor in interior design are truly painter or architect so
that they sometimes misunderstand the concepts between design and interior design (Nguyen,
2010). It is not difficult to point out the existing issues and inconsistency but currently there is no
scientific work or official research on the existing issues in education of interior design as well as
no survey or investigation on the quality of teaching and learning, the desire of students and the
requirements for recruitment. As a result, the scope of this study will focus on the context of
Vietnamese Interior Design education and directly to the faculty of Architecture and Planning at
National University of Civil Engineering.

3. Aim and Objectives

The research will be undertaken with the aim to analyze the effectiveness of applying Design
Thinking approach in studying in order to improve the quality of Vietnamese Interior Design
education. This research will be promoted by the need to understand if Design Thinking (both
through its main theories and practice) could contribute:

_ To bridge the gap between theory and practice.

 _ To bridge the gap between design studio and supportive courses (theory subjects) in
design curriculum.

_ To bridge the gap between technical skills and artistic.

_ To discover new connections of co-education between schools and enterprises.

_ To develop an effective Interior Design studio by applying Design Thinking process.

The beginning of the research was indeed characterized by clarity regarding the scope of work,
but considerable uncertainty about the path of knowledge to achieve it. It will be decided
therefore to adopt a heuristic method to drive the path of knowledge and evaluate the strategy.
The research will route take the direction of the Participated Action Research as a technique to
“understand by doing”; to clearly plan the closet steps and gradually move to the more distant
one.

4. Methodology

The research will be developed through a qualitative methodology.

Firstly, the research is based in type of desk research in order to collect existing data regarding
theoretical requirements for the study. The literature review will focus on 2 main areas:

1. Theoretical framework of Design Thinking approach in both antecedents and

contemporary

_ Design thinking in education

_ Design thinking in Interior design

2. Interior Design in a profession: industrial districts and education

_ Interior Design in wider context

 _ Interior Design in Vietnamese context

_ Interior Design education in international context

_ Interior Design education in Vietnamese context

Secondly, the study will move to the validation phase of the hypothesis with the purpose of
exploring and implementing Design Thinking approach in the context of Vietnamese Interior
Design education. In order to reach the objective above, it is essential to develop a specific
prototype or an experimental model. The structure of this phase will be divided into 2 sections:

The first stage consisted in interview activity within the context of Vietnamese respondents. The
outputs of this interview part will be described based on 3 different perspectives within students,
educators and enterprises. The common focus of the interview concerned the strengths and
weaknesses of Interior design education, temporary and long term solutions and implementation
plans.

For the first target group of student, the study was undertaken through two steps. In the first
step, the questionnaire was circulated online to targeted students within 2. The students
participated in this survey are from the universities in the fields of interior design across the
country, such as the University of Industrial Fine Arts, Hanoi Architectural University, Ho Chi
Minh City University of Architecture, Hanoi University of Business and Technology, Vietnam
National University of Forestry, University of Ton Duc Thang ...The total number of
questionnaires collected after two weeks expected from 250 to 300. All questionnaires were
analyzed and the results are illustrated with charts and diagrams. In the step 2, a range of direct
interviews was conducted within 3 weeks. The selected respondents are students from different
universities with high academic performance. At least 20 respondents will be interviewed face-
to-face or via Skype. The information is recorded for translation and research.

The second target group is professors and lecturers working in the fields of architecture and
design. This group is divided into 2 sub-groups. The first sub- group is professors and lecturers
with 20 years or more working experience. Some of them are still in work while others retire but
keep working for the private institutions. Besides, the second sub - group is younger lecturers
who also manage the companies of interior design and construction consultancy. 10 people
were interviewed by face – to – face or via Skype. The interviews were undertaken in 3 weeks.
The information will be fully recorded and documented.

The third groups are entrepreneurs and architects working in the field of interior design in
Vietnam. This group is also divided into 2 sub–groups. The first sub - group focuses on design
and actual construction according to the module and gives priority to the utilitarian design. The
second sub - group are architects or designers who used to study abroad. They have been
equipped with new ideas and style and possibly shape the trends of design in the future. The
number of respondents is 10 people. The interviews were carried out by face-to-face and via
Skype. The information is fully recorded and documented.

The second step of this phase is Participated Action- Research or research through design in
the mode of prototyping. It is not fast prototype as physical objects but in the form of a design
project implemented directly to the design studio course at National University of Civil
Engineering. Research through design is research “carried out with the tools of design, and
mainly with its most original and specific feature: the project” (Findeli, 1999). The main objective
of research through design is not to carry out a design project, but to use it as a ground of
research. The main idea is to set design research into practice, where practice is considered as
an intermediary of study informed by and informing appropriate theory (Schaik and Ganville,
2003). In order to examine the appropriateness of the suggested approach for implementation,
a number of selected students in one class will assign the design project under the process of
Design Thinking, and will receive constructive feedbacks for their works during the semester,
while the others will remain in the traditional method.

5. Project focus

With the aim of comparing the two teaching model, a total of 50 forth- year undergraduates in
the class (59KDNT) at National University of Civil Engineering will be asked to take part in this
specific prototype (experiment model). The class will be divided into 2 main groups within 25
and 25. One group selected to assign the design project which structure follows the process of
design thinking approach will take place through 3 overlapping phases named: Inspiration,
Ideation and Implementation. The group will be divided into 5 small groups with 5 students and
one instructor. In this project, besides the guidance, feedbacks and desk critiques in the class,
students have an opportunity to study and work directly with some practical architects and
interior designers chosen by the faculty in the co-design section. The other group still assigns
the design project in the form of traditional teaching method with no extra support from practical
professional. The expected effectiveness of the Design Thinking approach will be evaluated
using qualitative data analysis techniques including: observation, focus group discussion,
feedback sessions, reflective practice and in-depth interview.

6. Activities

Categories Place Professor Time

Research in Community Garden DESIS Lab Prof. Davide Fassi 27/11/2015 –

18/01/2016
Observing Temporary solution Design Prof. Davide Fassi 24/11/2015 –
Master class Department 30/01/2016

Take part in seminar Stop-City Design Professor from 21/01/2016

Department Milan, Turkey and
France
Participate in PhD Design Festival Design Prof. Alex Biamonti 07/03/2016 –
Department 11/03/2016
Collecting theoretical requirements PhD Research Prof. Davide Fassi 05/03/2016-
continue
Explore Milan Design week City of Milano Human-city Scale 12/04/2016 –
17/04/2016
Research in Interior Design DESIS Lab Prof. Davide Fassi 10/06/2016 –
courses in the international context 05/07/2016

Interview part for Vietnamese PhD Research Prof. Davide Fassi 02/08/2016 –
respondents 15/09/2016
7. Future Actions

Categories Place Professor Time

Analyze data from interview part PhD Research Prof. Davide Fassi 01/10/2016 –
20/11/2016
Collecting theoretical requirements PhD Research Prof. Davide Fassi continue

Research and determine PhD Research Prof. Davide Fassi 11/2016

appropriate methodology for the
study
Writing papers for conference Design Prof. Davide Fassi 01/2017
Department
Preparing for the Design project PhD Research Prof. Davide Fassi 3/2017
(prototype, experiment model)

Applying the experiment model in PhD Research Prof. Davide Fassi 07/2017 –
the context of Vietnam (phase 1) 09/2017

Internship activity Design Prof. Davide Fassi

Department
8. References

AITSL (2014). Learning through Doing: Introduction to Design Thinking. Australian Institute for
Teaching and School Leadership. [Online]. Available at http://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-
source/partnerships-documents/aitsl---learning-through-doing---introduction-to-design-
thinking_v4.pdf?sfvrsn=2 [Accessed 10 March 2016].

Alomar, A. M (2010). Creativity in Architecture and Management. P.O. Box 301899, Riyadh,
11372, Saudi Arabia. King Saudi University. [Online]. Available at
http://www.rasmusbronnum.dk/wp-content/uploads/creativity-in-architecture-and-
management.pdf [Accessed 18 February 2016].

Ambrose, G and Harris, P (2010). Design Thinking: The act or practice of using your mind to
consider design. Published by AVA Publishing SA, Rue des Fontenailles 16, Case Postale 1000
Lausanne 6, Switzerland.

Bono, E (1990). Lateral Thinking: Creativity Step by Step. EPub Edition DECEMBER 2011
ISBN: 9780062043276. First HARPER COLOPHON.
Brown, T (2008). How to Deliver on a Great Plan: Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review.
PDF file.

Brown, T (2009). Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and
Inspires Innovation, New York: HarperBusiness.

Brown, T and Wyatt, J (2010). Design Thinking for Social Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation
Review (Winter 2010) Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 30-35.

Buzan, T (1990). The Mind Map Book: How to Use Radiant Thinking to Maximize Your Brain’s
Untapped Potential Plume. New York, NY.

CHEP (2012). Innovation and Creativity in the Curriculum. The Open university, Centre for
Higher Education Practice. [Online]. Available at
http://www.innovations.ac.uk/btg/resources/publications/innovation.pdf [Accessed 10 March
2016].
DDG (2011). Creating ideas and Concepts: Creativity Techniques. Part 2. [Online]. Available at
http://intra.iam.hva.nl/content/1112/propedeuse/understanding_design/intro-en-
materiaal/P1112_reader-deel-04_Design_Methods.pdf [Accessed 14 March 2016].

Easteway, R (2013). Out of the Box: 101 Ideas for Thinking Creatively. Osprey Publishing Ltd
an imprint of Vearsa Limited.

English, S (2006). Design thinking- Value Innovation- Deductive Reason and the Designers
Choices. Design Research Society Conference. Lisbon 1- 4 November.

English, S (2007). Creating Universal Form: Using Universal to Describe Design Solution
Space. International Conference in Design Principles and Practices, Imperial College, London
4- 7 January.

Enrico, S (2014). How to start a Hobby in Interior Design. Published at SamEnrico Publishing.

Gunckel, K. L and Moore, F. M (2005). Including Students and Teachers in the Co-Design of
Enacted Curriculum. Paper presented at the NARST 2005 Annual Meeting (Dallas, Texas).

Hillgren, P. A, Seravalli, A and Emlison, A (2011). Prototyping and Infrastructuring in Design for
Social Innovation. Co-Design Vol.7. Nos. 3-4, September- December 2011, 169- 183.

IDEO (2011). The Field Guide to Human-Centered Design. By IDEO.org. 1st Edition, ISBN:
9780991406319. Printed in Canada.

Meroni, A, Fassi, D and Simeone, G (2013). Design for Social Innovation as a form of Design
Activism: an action format. [Online]. Available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/191848489/Design-
for-social-innovation-as-a-form-of-designing-activism-An-action-format [Accessed 16 March
2016].

Mulgan, G (2009). Strengths, weaknesses and a way forward? [online]. Social Innovation
Exchange. Available at http://www.socialinnovationexchange.org/designforsi/blog?page=1
[Accessed 16 February 2016].
Norman, D (2013). The Design of Everyday Things. Published by Basic Books, 250 West 57th
Street, 15th Floor, New York, New York 10107.

Norman, D. A (2014). Why DesignX? The Role of the Designers in Complex Problems. Creative
Commons Attribution, Non Commercial 4.0 International Licenses.

Provost, L. P and Langley, G. J (1998). The Importance of Concepts in Creativity and

Improvment. American Society for Quality. [Online]. Available at
http://www.apiweb.org/ImportanceofConcepts.pdf [Accessed 18 March 2016].

Razzouk, R and Shute, V (2012). What is Design Thinking and Why is its Imporant?. Review of
Educational Research, Florida State of University. [Online]. Available at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258183173 [Accessed 14 March 2016].

Royalty, A and Roth, B (2016). Developing Design Thinking Metrics as a Driver of Creative
innovation. Stanford University. [Online]. Available at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/294278543 [Accessed 5 April 2016].

Rustle, F (2012). MindMapping for Dummies. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd the Atrium
Southern Gate Chichester West Sussex PO198SQ England.

Sanders, B. N and Stappers, P. J (2014). Co-Creation and The New Landscape of Design, Co-
Design: International Journal of Co-Creation in Design and the Arts, 4: 1, 5- 18.

Santon, K (2012). Creative Thinking: Mind flexing, Brain storming, juice-flowing ways to discover
your inner genius. Manufactured by the Feel Good Factory. Infinite Ideas Limited, 36st Giles
Oxford OX13LD, United Kingdom.

Sibbet, D (2010). Visual Mettings: How Graphics, Sticky Notes and Idea Mapping can
Transform Group Productivity. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.

Sinclair, P (2012). Creative Thinking and Problem Solving. Smashwards Edition.

Wager, T (2011). Creating Innovators: the Making of Young People Who will Change the World.
SCRIBNER. New York.

Taha, V.A (2014). Education of Managers: Learning and Teaching Methods enhancing
Students’ Creativity. University of Presov in Presov. [Online]. Available at
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/267637544 [Accessed 10 April 2016].

Taha, V.A and Sirkova, M (2015). Creative Management Techniques and Methods as a part of
the Management Education: Analytical Study on Students’ Perception. University of Presov in
Presov. . [Online]. Available at http://www.researchgate.net/publication/280941819 [Accessed
10 April 2016].

Carla, C and Pier, P. P (2008). Changing the Change Proceedings: Design, Vision, Proposals
and Tools. International Conference, World Design Capital Torino, PDF file.

Lee, J (2014). A Theoretical Framework for Integrating Creativity Development into Curriculum:
The Case of a Korean Engineering School. Chung-Ang University. [Online]. Available at
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/271914488 [Accessed 11 April 2016].

Florida, R (2013). Cities and the Creative Class. American Sociological Association, 1307 New
York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20005-4701.

Kilgour, M (2006). Improving the Creative Process: Analysis of the Effect of Divergent Thinking
Tecniques and domain Specific Knowledge on Creativity. The University of Waikato. [Online].
Available at http://www.researchgate.net/publication/33052069 [Accessed 11 April 2016].

Luebkeman, C ( 2014). Design Is Our Answer: An Interview with Leading Design Thinker Tim
Brown. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Wenger, E (1998). Communities of Practice: A Brief Introduction. Cambridge, Massachusetts,

University Press. PDF file.

Harmer, N and Alison, S (2014). The Benefits and Challenges of Project-Based Learning: A
Review of the Literature. PedRIO with Pylmouth Univeristy. PDF file.
Mai, P.H and Yang, J.W (2013). The Current Situation of Vietnam Education. Social Sciences.
Vol. 2, No. 6, 2013, pp. 168- 178. doi: 10.11648/j.ss.20130206.11. PDF file.

Tran, T.T. (2012). Vietnamese higher education and the issue of enhancing graduate
employability. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 3(1), 2 – 16

IDEO (2012). Design Thinking for Educators. By IDEO.org. 2nd Edition. [Online]. Available at
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/. [Accessed 10 April 2016].

IDS (2010). An Introduction to Design Thinking: Process Guide. Institute of Design at Stanford.
Hasso Platter. PDF file.

Duffy, T. M. & Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Constructivism: New implications for instructional

technology. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of
instruction: A conversation. (pp.1-16). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Findeli, A. (2001). Rethinking Design Education for the 21st Century: Theoretical,
Methodological, and Ethical Discussion. Design Issues, 17(1), 5-17.

Franklin, E. M. & Erickson, A. (1987). Research in an undergraduate interior design curriculum.

Journal of interior design education and research, 13(1), 31-36.

Nutter, K. A. (2001). Tracing the Paths of Interior Design Education. Unpublished Master’s
Thesis. University of Cincinnati, Ohio.

Schon, D. (1985). The design studio: An exploration of its traditions and potentials. London:
RIBA Publications.

Schon, D. A. & Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing. Design
Studies, 13(2), 135-156.
Schon, D. A. (1987). Donald Schon, AERA 1987, "Educating the Reflective Practitioner”.
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC. Transcribed by J.
Carrick, January 1998. Retrieved June 19, 2005, from http://educ.queensu.ca/~ar/schon87.htm

Schon, D. A. (1990). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Bellanca, J., & Brandt, R. (Eds.). (2010). 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Buchanan, R. (2008). Introduction: Design and organizational change. Design Issues, 24, 2-9.

Christensen, C., Johnson, C. W., & Horn, M. B. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive
innovation will change the way the world learns. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Chance, S. (2010). Strategic by design: Iterative approaches to educational planning. Planning

for Higher Education, 38, 40–54.

Duffy, F. M. (2003). I think, therefore I am resistant to change. Journal of Staff Development, 24,
30–36.

Duffy, F. M., Reigeluth, C. M., Solomon, M., Caine, G., Carr-Chellman, A. A., Almeida, L., &
DeMars, S. (2006). The process of systemic change. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to
Improve Learning, 50, 41–51.