Design Thinking Implementation in Engineering Education: An Integrated Multi-Dimensional Comparative Analysis of Leading International Models

Traditional engineering education has been critiqued for its emphasis on technical knowledge while neglecting professional skills development necessary for addressing complex socio-technical challenges spanning climate change, digital transformation, and global inequality. Design thinking has emerged as a promising approach to transform engineering education by promoting humancentred innovation, interdisciplinary collaboration, and iterative problem-solving. While numerous institutions have begun adopting design thinking methodologies, there remains limited empirical research examining their implementation and effectiveness across different cultural and institutional contexts. This study aims to identify effective practices for integrating design thinking in engineering education by analysing two exemplary implementations at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the United States and University College London (UCL) in the United Kingdom. The research seeks to answer: (1) How do leading engineering schools' structure and implement design thinking curricula? (2) What transferable strategies can be identified for broader adoption in engineering programs globally? The research employs a mixed-methods comparative case study approach, integrating Rogers' innovation diffusion theory, Schein's organisational culture model, and systematic reform principles. Data collection included extensive document analysis of curricular materials, 20 semi-structured interviews with faculty members, program administrators, and students, and quantitative assessment data to identify critical implementation dimensions. Findings reveal that despite different implementation approaches-MIT's institution-wide Morningside Academy for Design versus UCL's faculty-level Integrated Engineering Programme-both institutions achieved significant improvements in students' problem-framing capabilities, interdisciplinary collaboration skills, and ability to address complex socio-technical challenges. Each model demonstrated distinctive strengths: MIT excelled in innovation infrastructure and maker ecosystems, while UCL demonstrated effective integration of design thinking within discipline-specific accredited programs without compromising technical rigour. Our findings indicate that design thinking cannot be effectively implemented in isolation but requires integration across broader disciplinary contexts. The study reveals three scalable implementation pathways suitable for different institutional contexts. Future engineering education should prioritise: (1) establishing collaborative partnerships between engineering departments and disciplines to create authentic interdisciplinary design environments; (2) developing holistic assessment frameworks that capture the nuanced cognitive processes of design thinking beyond simplified rubrics; and (3) embracing AI tools that can augment students' design capabilities while developing their critical evaluation skills. These approaches recognise that design thinking's value emerges through its interconnections with diverse knowledge domains and collaborative practices, preparing engineering graduates to navigate increasingly complex socio-technical landscapes.