Problem Statement

This thesis proposal addresses a gap in existing research and practice within design education by exploring how educators can create learning environments that promote student agency in the face of complexity. Drawing inspiration from teaching user experience (UX) design at four Canadian and one American post-secondary institution over the past 19 years, I have witnessed the growing complexity of design projects and how real-world design challenges can disrupt well-structured learning environments. These interruptions are often compounded by the need to coordinate with external stakeholders, such as community partners or industry collaborators, whose expectations, schedules, and communication preferences must be managed alongside the classroom dynamics. This dual responsibility frequently adds to an instructor’s workload and requires careful balancing of pedagogical goals with real-world expectations and outcomes. Throughout my teaching career, collaborating with industry partners has presented great learning opportunities for students but also challenges for me, particularly in adapting project directions and creating opportunities for student input. These experiences highlight the tensions between structured, externally driven projects and the need to create space for students’ voices. Nonetheless, research indicates that student agency thrives in more flexible learning environments, where students are empowered to make crucial decisions about their own learning and even question the material they are learning (Vaughn, 2021). This thesis proposal sets out to accomplish three main goals: (1) to investigate the role of simulation-based learning environments in fostering student agency within an undergraduate design course; (2) to pinpoint effective instructional strategies that promote more flexible, student-centered approaches to tackling complex, real-world design problems; and (3) to examine the connection between students' perceived sense of agency and their observable expressions of agency. In doing so, this study aims to contribute to broader conversations in higher education about the need to develop learners who are not only knowledgeable in a specific field but also resilient and prepared for the challenges faced by society (Van Dijck et al., 2023). These goals are not pursued in isolation; instead, they respond to the pressing demands within higher education and society at large. The urgency of this study is underscored by the growing recognition that cultivating student agency is essential for preparing students to navigate an unpredictable and interconnected world. In higher education, agency has been linked to adaptability, motivation, and lifelong learning (Bandura, 2001; Eteläpelto et al., 2013; Martin, 2004). As global crises intensify, universities must prepare students not only with technical expertise but also with the ability to engage critically and creatively with complex systems (Lehtonen et al., 2023) and use systemic thinking to address complex global challenges (Dorst, 2019; Engholm, 2023). In this way, “Design can and must become a way in which young people can participate in changing society” (Papanek, 1971, p. xiii).

Research Questions

This mixed methods study investigates how students perceive, demonstrate, and develop their agency within a collaborative design simulation focused on addressing the complex, systemic problem of plastic waste in a fictional coastal region. Using a combination of two questionnaires, reflective audio logs, and classroom observations the study’s primary goal is to examine how students perceive and demonstrate their agency, particularly in developing the skills and confidence necessary to navigate a complex design challenge. The following three interconnected research questions serve as a lens and direction for this study.RQ1 – Quantitative: To what extent does participation in a complex, collaborative design simulation affect students’ perception of their agency?RQ2 – Qualitative: How do students demonstrate their agency during a complex, ill-defined design challenge?RQ3 – Integrative: What is the connection between the qualitative aspects of student agency, evident in student reflections and classroom behaviour, and the measured changes in students’ self-reported sense of agency? The remaining sections of this proposal review the literature and the proposed methodology. The literature review situates this research within the evolving context of design practice. As design challenges have become increasingly complex, there is a pressing need to shift educational training toward practices that embrace complexity and foster student agency. Building on its theoretical foundation, this review explores how student agency is expressed in classroom settings through a sociocultural lens, which views agency as an emergent, relational, and contextually mediated capacity to act (Ahearn, 2001; Biesta & Tedder, 2007; Eteläpelto et al., 2013), co-constructed within the cultural, historical, and social practices of the learning environment (Lipponen & Kumpulainen, 2011; Rajala et al., 2016). Therefore, this review seeks to clarify the conditions that either enable or hinder students' ability to act intentionally within complex, collaborative learning environments and to offer actionable insights for designing educational practices that more effectively foster student agency. The methodology section outlines the research design, context, participants, instruments, analysis, and ethical considerations. The proposal concludes with a brief discussion of the study’s anticipated contributions to scholarship and educational practice.

Literature Review

Evolving Definitions of Design

iDesign is both a practice and an academic discipline (Meyer & Norman, 2020). It defies a simple definition across subfields such as product design, fashion, architecture, and user interface, as well as in addressing complexity. At its core, design involves “meaning through form-giving” (Poggenpohl & Sato, 2009, p. 11) or, as Herbert Simon (1981) famously noted, "changing existing situations into preferred ones" (p. 129). The transition from arts and crafts to an academic discipline has significantly changed how designers approach their work. Designers needed an entirely new skill set as they evolved from focusing solely on individual endeavours to collaborating with others (Thackara, 2005). This includes a deeper understanding of psychology, sociology, history, and technology. These disciplines have become essential because designing complex social and technological systems requires insights into human behaviour and cultural and historical contexts. Together, they enable designers to create solutions that are functional, aesthetically pleasing, socially responsible, and contextually relevant. As designers increasingly operate at the intersection of the physical, digital, and service domains, being technologically savvy has become a crucial skill in design education. Understanding technology goes beyond mastering software or digital tools; it involves understanding how technology influences human behaviour, impacts social and environmental systems, and sustains or challenges existing power structures (Meyer & Norman, 2020). While design was initially centred on craftsmanship and visual appeal, designers today are not only makers but also problem-solvers working on complex challenges that address sustainability, ethics, and social equity (Justice, 2019), all activities that extend beyond their traditional skill sets due to the domains' compatibility with a networked world (Dorst, 2009). In this context, networked describes the complex, interconnected nature of modern design challenges that are deeply embedded within social, economic, and technological systems (Meyer & Norman, 2020), rendering traditional, standalone problem-solving methods inadequate. To illustrate this transformation of design, consider an Australian initiative in which designers were tasked with reimagining service delivery for low-income families (Joyce, 2023). Although designers primarily focused on developing design artifacts (in this case, services for marginalized communities), the project demonstrated how design served as a method to transfer power from the government to citizens and service providers, enabling them to co-create solutions and influence broader social change.

From Human-Centered to Planet-Centered Design

Historically, user or human-centred design has been the prevailing methodology for creating products and services (Davis & Dubberly, 2023; Mattelmäki et al., 2011). The evolution of human-computer interaction (HCI) has been profoundly influenced by this methodology, which has undergone substantial transformations over time. Rooted in usability studies, HCI’s first wave was primarily about the usability and efficiency of digital products for a single user, often tied to workplace settings (Bødker, 2006). In contrast, the second wave focused on collaborative settings and group applications, moving away from rigid guidelines toward participatory approaches, prototyping, and contextual inquiry (Thüring & Mahlke, 2007). The latter is a design research technique that immerses designers in the users’ actual environment to uncover real needs, behaviours, and challenges, thereby devising more impactful solutions. Participatory design employs an inclusive approach to develop systems, products, or solutions by involving all stakeholders, including end users, throughout the design process (Harper & Mustafee, 2023). The third wave, which aligns with my field of user experience (UX) design, expanded the focus of design from mere product development to include emotional, cultural, and social dimensions, emphasizing how a user’s cultural context influences their interactions with technology. Don Norman, a cognitive scientist and educator, coined the term ‘user experience’ in his seminal work, The Design of Everyday Things (Norman, 2013), which was first published in 1988. Norman emphasized the importance of designing products, such as physical objects or digital products like websites and mobile applications, with the user's overall experience in mind. This perspective marked a significant shift from traditional, product-centric design methodologies to prioritizing the user's needs, desires, behaviours, and emotions as a central aspect of the design process.While some researchers have questioned the validity of users' emotions, such as happiness and surprise, as "fuzzy experiential qualities" (Law et al., 2014, p. 526), others have pointed out that any description of the user experience must also encompass people’s emotional dimensions as they interact with technology (McCarthy & Wright, 2004). Hassenzahl (2010) takes this a step further, asserting that "emotion is at the centre of experience" (p. 16). While HCI and UX have transformed how designers prioritize users, there is mounting evidence that placing humans at the centre of the development cycle may be problematic. For example, a narrow focus on human needs can have unintended consequences, damaging global systems and harming life on Earth (Borthwick et al., 2022). In response to the complex challenges of a globalized world, the design industry has increasingly advocated for a more holistic definition of design, one that considers the interconnectedness of humans, nonhuman entities, and ecological systems (Augsten & Gekeler, 2017; Brosens et al., 2023; Engholm, 2023; Hernandez et al., 2017; Norman & Stappers, 2015). “Life-centred design” looks beyond the human-centred approach (Borthwick et al., 2022, p. 3) to highlight the importance of designing for all life forms, not just humans (Thackara, 2005). By shifting from human-centred to life-centred or even planetary-centred design (Engholm, 2023; Vignoli et al., 2021), designers are encouraged to create solutions that balance human needs with the health of the environment and the well-being of future generations. In this sense, design has evolved from a perfectionist, form-oriented discipline to a holistic, exploratory approach to collaboration (Burnett, 2009; Rylander, 2009; Sanders & Stappers, 2008), elevating design from a craft to a discipline (Poggenpohl & Sato, 2009), expanding the roles and responsibilities of designers (Flores et al., 2012), and necessitating a broader range of skills and competencies that fundamentally change design practice (Augsten & Gekeler, 2017; Cautela et al., 2014).

Design within/as Complexity

Many researchers have adopted a systemic view of design, utilizing complexity as a framework for understanding the aforementioned shifts in the design field (Bar-Yam, 1997; Flores & Morán, 2017; Thackara, 2005; Whitney & Nogueira, 2020). Thus, design is a deliberate process of transformation that acknowledges and incorporates complexity (Nelson & Stolterman, 2012). Numerous complex challenges, including climate change and biodiversity loss, extend beyond a single generation (Friedman & Nathan, 2010), suggesting that a preferred outcome or solution may not be attained for several decades or centuries, if at all. Dorst (2009) discussed the evolving role of design in society, highlighting that designers are now expected to engage in tasks that extend well beyond traditional design practice, which Rowe (2020) defined as focusing on materials, outputs, and products. The scope of design has expanded to include designing processes, organizations, and even societies (Engholm, 2023). It has evolved beyond its conventional roots into a strategic approach for innovation (Joyce, 2023) and environmental stewardship and systemic thinking in response to increasingly complex challenges (Buchanan, 1992; Earle & Leyva-de la Hiz, 2021). Conventional step-by-step problem-solving frameworks (Dorst, 2019) break the design process into manageable phases, moving strategically from the initial problem to a solution. These models are frequently depicted as a Double Diamond, a concept developed by the British Design Council[1]. The framework draws on the works of Victor Papanek and others (see Kochanowska et al., 2022). It categorizes the process into four stages: discover, define, develop, and deliver, guiding designers from examining a broad problem space to focusing on and executing targeted solutions. While these phase-based frameworks, commonly taught in design schools, may be suitable for well-defined design problems with predictable outcomes, they are inadequate when applied to “wicked problems” characterized by ambiguity, interconnected factors, and resistance to clear solutions (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Wicked problems are systemic challenges, such as online disinformation, housing affordability, the safe governance of artificial intelligence (Crilly, 2025), climate change, and poverty, that expose the limitations of linear problem-solving. These complex challenges demand more adaptive, context-aware, and collaborative approaches (Goodyear & Markauskaite, 2019), where problems and solutions co-evolve rather than follow fixed phases, as Dorst (2019) critiques. Rittel and Webber (1973) used "crime in the streets" (p. 166) as an example of a wicked problem. This problem has no single root cause and is interconnected with poverty, policing, social inequality, education, and urban design. A linear problem-solving method would fail because addressing one aspect (e.g., increased police presence) may have an adverse effect on other aspects (e.g., shifting crime elsewhere). Wicked problems like this require iterative, adaptive approaches that involve multiple stakeholders and perspectives rather than a one-size-fits-all solution.Herbert Simon (1973) recognized the potential of design as a problem-solving method to address complex challenges, a view further developed by Hatchuel (2001), VanPatter (2020) and Engholm (2023). These scholars stated that design, when understood as an evolving and exploratory practice, offers a way to navigate technological complexities and the sociocultural dimensions inherent in many contemporary issues. As Dorst (2019) points out, a significant portion of the complexity in today’s design challenges arises not from the technical but from the human realm, as is evident in my WorldVision project mentioned earlier. In that project, students had to consider the needs of a range of community stakeholders who often provided conflicting viewpoints on plastic use and waste issues. This project revealed how critical cultural values and power dynamics are in significantly influencing the nature of the challenge and the practicality of the proposed design solution. Don Norman (2023) proposes a helpful definition of design that takes such complexity into account:

We need design as a way of thinking, of approaching large sociotechnical systems, of recognizing each person as a component in the complex system of the world that comprises all living things, the earth, land, and sea, where each component impacts the others (p. 13).            

Redström (2020) argues that the increase in complexity is not only due to external influences but also because of an internal ambition within design to explore and engage with more complex issues, bringing about "a reorientation of the making process from production towards speculative experimentation" (p. 89). The evolving focus of design on complex, systemic challenges necessitates modifications to how we teach design. Goodyear and Markauskaite (2019) emphasize the importance of adopting iterative, adaptive and collaborative pedagogical strategies in design education

Design Education: Tradition, Transformation, and the Need for Change

The following section traces the evolution of design education from a focus on craftsmanship and technical skills to more structured academic programs. It critiques its limitations in addressing 21st-century complexities and highlights collaborative and project-based learning approaches as essential responses to these evolving demands.

Bauhaus and its Legacy

Although design has undergone a profound shift, design education has not entirely kept up. It has often remained siloed (Poggenpohl & Sato, 2009), focusing on the transfer of tacit knowledge, technical skills, and teaching inefficient processes (Meyer & Norman, 2020). Traditional design education is rooted in a master-apprentice model (Rowe, 2024), where students primarily learn through observation and imitation. Brosens et al. (2023) characterize this approach as teacher-centred, tracing its roots to design education developed at the German Bauhaus school. The Bauhaus, founded by Walter Gropius in Germany in 1919, is arguably the most influential force in design education today (Weil & Mayfield, 2020). It emphasized the economic feasibility of mass-produced products for the marketplace, shaping the design curricula today (Davis, 2017). Although the Bauhaus method was revolutionary, its processes are no longer sufficient to address 21st-century challenges. Redström (2020) warns that we risk perpetuating unsustainable modes of living, creating, and thinking if we do not address the complexities of the modern world.

Collaborative Learning in Design Education

While domain-specific expertise remains valued in several professions, including design, employers are increasingly seeking graduates with strong communication and teamwork abilities (Cortázar et al., 2022; Vartiainen et al., 2022). The effectiveness of project-based approaches in design education is widely recognized (Flores et al., 2012), with Augsten and Gekeler (2017) noting that project-based learning (PjBL) has long been the dominant teaching method in design education. Souleles et al. (2022) demonstrated that PjBL, grounded in theoretically sound practice, is crucial for design education, as designers must develop the ability to organize collaborative efforts among diverse disciplines (Hernandez et al., 2017; Young, 2013). This involves the skill to navigate and understand the different value systems inherent in these fields, take ownership of one's learning process (Tekkol & Demirel, 2018), and act as facilitators. This requires designers to acquire a new set of skills and competencies, including the ability to lead and coordinate team processes that can be messy and challenging (Augsten & Gekeler, 2017; Perks et al., 2005; Valkenburg & Dorst, 1998). Frameworks, such as Binkley et al.'s 21st-century skill model (2012), highlight the need for cognitive, collaborative, and social competencies, emphasizing critical thinking, cultural awareness, and global citizenship for inclusion in modern design education.

Preparing Students for Complexity

Scholars have noted that despite growing awareness of interdisciplinary needs, most design programs are still housed in design-only university departments or standalone design schools (Faerm, 2022; K. Friedman, 2015; Whitney & Nogueira, 2020), which limits cross-disciplinary collaboration. Viktor Papanek (1971) suggested that design education has historically overemphasized technical skills while overlooking the broader social, political, and environmental contexts. This notion aligns with the recommendations of multiple scholars to broaden the scope of design education to address systemic issues (Engholm, 2023; Flores & Morán, 2017; Meyer & Norman, 2020). Redström (2020) argues that design education must change to embrace complexity, transitioning from simple linear approaches to frameworks that address “wicked problems” (Rittel & Webber, 1973, p. 160) and uncertain futures (Goodyear & Markauskaite, 2019). Scholars agree that re-evaluating educational frameworks is crucial to ensure that design curricula are in sync with the demands of a dynamic, globally connected world (Norman & Stappers, 2015; Poggenpohl & Sato, 2009; Rowe, 2024). Faludi et al. (2023) further advocate for a holistic approach to teaching that integrates sustainability as a guiding principle, which aligns with Engholm's notion of design beyond human-centred approaches (2023). Davis and Dubberly (2023) assert that design education is undergoing a paradigm shift from a focus on simple product and service creation toward a systems approach. This notion is echoed by Redström (2020), who agrees that students must develop the skills to work within complexity rather than focus on designing final solutions. However, addressing complexity requires encouraging students’ agency, their ability to shape their own learning paths, develop autonomy, and apply their knowledge in various contexts (Klemenčič, 2017). Weil and Mayfield (2020, p. 159) list three essential competencies needed for 21st-century designers, which become more powerful when framed through the lens of student agency:

1. Embracing complexity by allowing students to reframe complex challenges.

Rather than positioning students as passive recipients of predetermined design challenges, educators can create conditions that allow students to question, redefine, and broaden the scope of a challenge. Agency here refers to students actively intervening in and influencing their learning environment while developing resilience in the face of uncertainty.

2.  Cultivating possibilities through collaboration and interdisciplinary creativity.

Designing for agency means that students not only collaborate but also negotiate roles, make informed design decisions, and share their perspectives with peers. In this way, students can actively contribute to shaping collaborative outcomes.  

3. Driving impactful change through knowledge mobilization.
In complex design contexts, knowledge is not static. Instead, it must be critically interpreted and applied in changing contexts. When students have the agency to choose meaningful pathways through the design challenge and connect prior knowledge to real-world problems, they may see themselves as capable actors shaping both their own learning and the broader systems they engage with.

To cultivate these competencies, instructors should create flexible learning environments that allow students to navigate uncertainty (Redström, 2020) and devise learning experiences that extend beyond the classroom (Davis & Dubberly, 2023). The evolution of design education underscores the vital role of student agency in the learning process. Tackling complexity involves more than just technical expertise; it requires students to have the freedom to make choices, take responsibility for their learning, and engage deeply with uncertainty. Therefore, learning environments must be purposefully crafted to foster agency, enabling students to navigate their own paths through complex and unpredictable challenges. The following section presents further discussion on student agency. [1] https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-resources/framework-for-innovation/

Student Agency

Human agency has been a central subject of study in educational theory (Vaughn, 2020). John Dewey (1922) considered agency a fundamental aspect of human nature, while Vygotsky (1978) emphasized its social dimension, highlighting how individuals develop agency through interaction with others. While Albert Bandura’s seminal work on agency describes human agency as the capacity of individuals to purposely influence their own actions and surroundings (Bandura, 1989, 1997; Moses et al., 2020), this study adopts a more relational and context-sensitive perspective grounded in a sociocultural and ecological view of agency. Rather than viewing agency as an internal, individual trait, I lean toward a relational perspective of agency, one that understands agency as emerging through dynamic interactions between individuals, their peers, tools, and institutional structures (Biesta & Tedder, 2007; Eteläpelto et al., 2013; Jääskelä et al., 2017, 2020; Kajamaa & Kumpulainen, 2019; Lipponen & Kumpulainen, 2011). From this perspective, agency is not a static trait but is collaboratively developed over time, influenced by the opportunities and limitations of the context. This conception of agency is relevant in the context of simulation-based learning, where students must continually respond to evolving conditions. Emirbayer and Mische (1998) describe agency as a process that unfolds over time. It is shaped by the past (through habits), aimed at the future (through imagination), and occurs in the present (by evaluating new situations). This temporal framing of agency corresponds with Brown and Renshaw's (2006) chronotopic analysis of classroom interaction, which refers to how students draw on past experiences, act in the present, and imagine future possibilities within collaborative learning environments. This aligns with Shaffer's (2012) notion of epistemic frames, which characterize learning and the structured ways of thinking and acting that reflect how professionals integrate knowledge and skills to attempt complex problems (see also Siebert-Evenstone et al., 2017). It also closely matches my aim in the simulation, where students must continually reframe and readjust the scope of the challenge, rather than treating it as static or predetermined. They draw on their past experiences, envision potential outcomes for the project, and make informed decisions to navigate complex challenges. This process aligns with Miettinen's (2013) concept of collaborative agency, in which joint action and innovation emerge from creative interactions among peers with complementary skills. Within the simulation, students negotiate meaning, their roles, and responsibilities, establishing a shared goal, what Miettinen refers to as a "joint object" (p. 159) that serves as a focal point for the group’s decision-making and learning.A recent systematic review highlights that higher education research often fails to sufficiently examine the interplay between agency and learning contexts, even though this relationship is central to educational transformation (Stenalt & Lassesen, 2022). Notably, agency remains undertheorized within project-based learning (PjBL) environments (Svihla et al., 2023), an important gap given that the course in this study is explicitly project-based. Most empirical research on student agency has been conducted in Northern European contexts, particularly Finland, and has primarily focused on teacher education programs. This disciplinary and geographic concentration underscores the need for broader exploration of agency across different academic domains and instructional approaches. By focusing on a Canadian undergraduate design course grounded in project-based learning, this study contributes a novel perspective to the field, expanding the scope of agency research into underrepresented disciplinary contexts.

Theoretical Frameworks and Perspectives

There are various theoretical frameworks and perspectives for understanding the concept of agency. The context-specific nature of an individual’s agency was detailed by Bandura (1989, 2001), who conceptualized it as rooted in Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), arising from the ongoing interactions between a person’s thoughts and beliefs, their actions, and the surrounding environment, all of which influence each other. A comprehensive literature review of student agency from 2000 to 2022 (Torres Castro & Pineda-Báez, 2023) identified SCT as the predominant theoretical framework in research on this topic. In a paper addressing the evolution of the theory, Bandura (2018) noted that insights from SCT have been widely applied to address individual and societal transformations, including responses to urgent global challenges. In this context, agency is intrinsically linked to equipping people with the capacity to navigate complexity, uncertainty, and change—an essential aim of this thesis proposal. In their systematic review of higher education research, Stenalt and Lassesen (2022) discovered that while agency is frequently mentioned, it is often inadequately defined or removed from the context in higher education studies. This highlights the need for a deeper examination of how agency is expressed in specific learning activities and settings.Research cautions against reducing agency to individual psychological traits alone. Biesta and Tedder's (2007) ecological theory of agency understands agency not as a fixed trait or personal capacity but as the interplay of an individual’s experience, context, and time. Agency should be understood as emerging through dynamic interactions between individuals and their environments (Lipponen & Kumpulainen, 2011; Su, 2011). This view emphasizes that agency is a relational attribute that considers both internal and external factors (Santana Martel & Perez Garcias, 2022) and is mediated by participating in social practices and through the use of cultural tools (Kajamaa & Kumpulainen, 2019). In this vein, Code (2020) introduced Agency for Learning (AFL), which further locates agency within the interplay of social, motivational, and contextual forces within an educational context.  Constructivist, student-centred pedagogies play a crucial role in fostering agency. Moses et al. (2021) described how connecting learning to students’ lives, offering real-world problem solving, and sharing authority in the classroom cultivates agentic behaviours. Similarly, design-based interventions and collaborative tasks have been shown to enhance students’ capacity to act and influence their learning environment.

Pedagogical Considerations Supporting Student Agency

While agency is well-theorized in educational literature, a persistent gap remains between these theoretical constructs and classroom settings that foster student agency (Vaughn, 2021). The author goes on to say that agency is particularly relevant when supporting diverse student voices, backgrounds, and cultures to come to the forefront, and stresses the importance of a supportive classroom environment in encouraging student agency. In her small-scale study (n=3) on agency within a science classroom, Martin (2016) noted how seemingly successful students, in this case females, often default to being “good students,” complying with instructions rather than participating as active and agentic inquirers. One suggestion from the study recognizes the benefits of students working in small groups as sub-communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). This aligns with the aims of simulation-based design education, which frames it as a means of cultivating agency. By encouraging students to engage with, reflect upon, and reframe complex design challenges within small teams (Bagley & Shaffer, 2015), simulations create conditions in which agency can emerge as relational, dynamic, and socially integrated (Bandura, 2001; Eteläpelto et al., 2013). Based on empirical research, Clarke et al. (2016) offer a valuable lens for understanding how students’ sense of agency and enacted agency may develop. Their hybrid model of agency, drawing on Bandura's focus on intentionality (2006) and Giddens' view of capability (1984), illustrates how students’ participation is influenced by their self-perception as well as the social dynamics within the classroom. These findings are particularly significant for understanding agency in simulation-based classroom settings. Martin (2004) links agency to self-regulated learning, arguing that students’ capacity to plan, monitor, and reflect on their learning is shaped by both personal and sociocultural aspects.

Agency and Professionalism

The concept of agency has emerged as a central theme in learning research, particularly in the context of professional and workplace learning (Eteläpelto et al., 2013; Goller, 2017; Jääskelä et al., 2020), and is regarded as essential to professionalism (Torres Castro & Pineda-Báez, 2023; Tynjälä, 2013). Vähäsantanen et al. (2009) emphasized that agency frequently manifests in boundary-crossing contexts, indicating how students must navigate varying cultures and expectations as they transition between academic and professional settings. In an empirical case study focused on practice in engineering and product design education, Van Dijck et al. (2023) demonstrated how student agency can be amplified through a disruptive education model in which students and lecturers collaborate in an “innovation consultancy firm.” Together, they co-created learning pathways while addressing complex sustainability challenges. By positioning students as active decision-makers in real-world contexts, this approach promotes agency, responsibility, and collaborative problem-solving. In the next section, I examine how simulation-based settings create conditions for agency to emerge.

Simulation-Based Learning

Teaching students to navigate complex, wicked problems in a university classroom can be challenging; however, simulation-based learning presents a promising method for teaching students about complex and dynamic processes (Vermeiren et al., 2022). Simulations immerse students in real-life scenarios, where they build on existing knowledge and practice their skills in a realistic yet controlled environment (Lateef, 2010). Simulations are often used in medical education because this form of learning offers deliberate practice of new skills (Weller et al., 2012). Lateef (2020) recommends conducting an orientation or pre-briefing for simulation-based learning to help participants adopt the right mindset and create an overall sense of psychological safety in the learning environment. Simulation-based learning is particularly well-suited for this study because it encourages students to engage with and investigate complex problem situations that might otherwise be too dangerous or difficult to accomplish in a classroom environment (Bagley & Shaffer, 2015). Similar to simulations, epistemic games require students to take on the roles of members of a “community of practice” (Lave & Wenger, 1991) and address a complex challenge. For instance, the Virtual Citizen-to-Citizen project taught empathy through simulation-based learning in a political science context (Stover, 2005). The project demonstrated how simulations enhanced students' understanding of complex, interconnected situations and fostered their ability to consider diverse perspectives within a Middle Eastern context. This aspect is particularly relevant for design within complex, wicked problems, where conflicting viewpoints among multiple stakeholders are recognized characteristics (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Urban Science is an epistemic game that helps high school students learn about city planning in a virtual setting (Bagley & Shaffer, 2015; Beckett & Shaffer, 2005). This study examined how students learn and think like professionals. It compared face-to-face mentoring with online chat-based mentoring. Researchers employed Epistemic Network Analysis (ENA) to investigate how students discussed writing, teamwork, and reasoning. They found that the students learned similar skills in both settings. This shows that online mentoring can be as effective as in-person mentoring for complex learning processes. Although both examples leverage simulations in technology-supported virtual settings, they offer valuable insights for my research. A successful simulation-based approach includes action, where students attempt to grapple with a complex issue, followed by time for reflection during which they share their process with others (Bagley & Shaffer, 2015).

Conclusion

This literature review highlights a growing shift in design practice, moving beyond the creation of human-centered products to addressing complex, systemic, and global issues. With this shift, there is a pressing need to reorient design education toward approaches that not only foster interdisciplinary collaboration and critical reflection but, above all, cultivate student agency. The capacity for students to take the initiative, make decisions, and shape their own learning pathways is increasingly seen as essential for navigating the complexity inherent in the 21st-century. The literature underscores that without developing student agency, efforts to prepare learners for real-world design challenges risk being superficial or unsustainable.

Methodology

This doctoral study explores how students perceive and demonstrate their agency within a fast-paced, complex design simulation. In doing so, the work contributes to ongoing conversations about future-ready design education and the potential of simulation-based learning to influence student agency and prepare them for the complexities of the real world.I plan to conduct this research in the undergraduate design course INFO 300: Information and Data Design[1] at the University of British Columbia. This elective course runs over 13 weeks during the Winter 2 term (January – April 2026), with data collection occurring during a five-week simulation embedded in the second half of the course. The following sections outline the methodology, philosophical foundation, and mixed methods research design of this study. It begins by situating the study in a pragmatic worldview and explaining how my teaching approach aligns with the research focus, and details the current and proposed course contexts and the structure of the design simulation. The subsequent sections describe the participants, instruments, and analytical methods. I conclude with ethical considerations, study limitations, and knowledge mobilization strategies.

Worldview, Teaching Approach and Alignment with Research Focus

Creswell and Creswell (2023) suggest that researchers use the term "worldview" (p. 7) to represent the beliefs and actions that form the foundation of a research study. They note that the term “worldview” captures a global outlook and highlights the interconnections of the modern world. My worldview and teaching approach are deeply influenced by pragmatism. This philosophy is rooted in the works of John Dewey (1899, 1916, 1933), C. S. Peirce, William James, and others (see Cherryholmes, 1992) and is based on human activity (Gillespie et al., 2024). Pragmatism advocates for methodological flexibility and the use of mixed methods as the most suitable approach to explore the research questions (Creswell & Creswell, 2023). Furthermore, pragmatism aligns with the sociocultural view of agency by emphasizing action, context, and situated problem-solving. In this study, agency is not simply an individual trait but is enacted through participation in collaborative activities. This perspective complements Dewey’s pragmatist ideas, which treat learning as relational and reflective engagement with the world (Dewey, 1938). My teaching philosophy emphasizes a student-centred learning experience across all courses, including INFO 300. This approach involves learning through practical application, experimentation, and iteration of ideas in real-world settings. Dewey’s notion of what constitutes truth is relevant here, as he considered that there is no absolute truth; rather, it is constructed as a byproduct of solving problems (Hickman et al., 2009). In the context of design education, this means guiding students to address complex challenges not by searching for definitive answers or perfect solutions but by exploring what is effective in each context, understanding the reasons behind its effectiveness, and identifying the people for whom the design is intended.

Research Design

To gain a deeper understanding of students’ development of agency within this research context, this doctoral research utilizes a mixed methods research design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018; Plano Clark & Ivankova, 2016), integrating both qualitative and quantitative data to explore the subjective and varied experiences of the participating students. Mixed methods enable a more comprehensive analysis of students’ evolving competencies, especially when used convergently. This involves merging quantitative findings from the two questionnaires with qualitative insights from the reflective audio logs and field notes by “connecting the two databases” (Creswell & Creswell, 2023, p. 240). This ensures that I capture objective measures along with the “whys and hows” (Guest et al., 2013, p. 16) of the human experience. [1] https://vancouver.calendar.ubc.ca/course-descriptions/courses/infov-300-information-and-data-design

Research Setting

Course Context: INFO 300: Information and Data Design

This study will be conducted in INFO 300: Information and Data Design, a 13-week, in-person undergraduate course offered during the Winter 2 term at the University of British Columbia; the study will take place from January to April 2026. This course is part of the School of Information’s minor in informatics[1] and primarily consists of second and third-year students from varied academic backgrounds. This elective introduces students to fundamental design principles, ethical design practices, usability, and collaborative problem solving. Students engage with design methods to address complex, real-world information challenges and develop prototypes that integrate theory with practical applications. The course’s focus on understanding user behaviour, iterative design, and interdisciplinary teamwork makes it an ideal setting for exploring student agency within complex design contexts.

Current Course Structure.

In the current version of the course, students engage in an iterative process of design research, ideation, prototyping, and usability testing, with a strong emphasis on understanding user behaviour, system contexts, and ethical design implications. Having taught this course twice in the past two years, I have continuously refined its structure and activities, incorporated student feedback, and adapted it to evolving pedagogical goals. In the first five weeks, students work independently, followed by an open-ended team project of their choosing starting in week six. Students can revise and resubmit all assignments up to the last day of the course to encourage a focus on learning rather than simply achieving a grade. I welcome student feedback on course content or structure; for example, previous students have requested additional learning materials to explore specific topics in greater depth.

Proposed Course Structure.

In the revised course structure, the first four weeks are dedicated to building foundational design skills, including research methods, designing for human behaviour, and visual design principles. The five-week design simulation, the focus of data collection in this study, will begin in the latter part of the course, replacing the open-ended team project. During this simulation, students work in small teams to address a plastic waste challenge based on a fictional coastal region inspired by the WorldVision project described earlier.

Design Simulation.            

As Vaughn notes in her book on student agency in the classroom, "there is no quick fix to creating student agency" (2021, p. 98); however, there are course structures and learning conditions that are conducive to cultivating the development of agency. For example, in a simulation-based learning environment, the overall structure of the design project, the nature of the prompts students receive, and how I, as the instructor, respond to student input will significantly influence whether students perceive themselves as agents. If students feel that their input is not appreciated or are unsure about how to engage effectively, they may lose interest, even if they are mentally committed. On the other hand, as Clarke et al. (2016) noted acknowledgment from instructors and peers, referred to as "echo effects" (p. 32), can lead to more spontaneous participation, motivating students to view themselves as active contributors and creators of knowledge.The design simulation immerses students in addressing a complex, ill-defined challenge (see Appendix A). I deliberately structured it to foster student agency, aligning with Vaughn's (2020) conceptualization across three interconnected dimensions: dispositional, motivational, and positional (p. 110). The simulation prompts students to take the initiative and develop a sense of purpose in their design work (dispositional). Through three ‘roadblocks’, students are placed in conditions of uncertainty, where they are encouraged to persist through setbacks and devise creative strategies to continue (motivational). Finally, the collaborative aspect of the simulation suggests that agency and design work are socially situated and co-constructed with peers (positional). A central assignment of the design simulation is for students to develop an ungraded ecosystem map in small teams. An ecosystem map is a visual representation that identifies and connects various elements, such as people, government agencies, interest groups, organizations, and feedback loops within a system. In this study, students map the complex sociotechnical systems surrounding plastic waste in a fictional coastal region. This iterative mapping activity is intended to help students understand the interdependencies, power dynamics, ripple effects, and unintended consequences of their design choices. Student teams will create and refine their ecosystem maps using the online collaborative software Miro[1], working primarily in class, with some work expected to be completed outside of class. Miro is an expansive collaborative online whiteboard that allows teams to intuitively and asynchronously map their research concepts. New and often conflicting information will be introduced incrementally throughout the simulation as roadblocks to mirror the unpredictability and complexity of actual design contexts. Students are expected to add new insights, reconfigure stakeholder relationships, and refine their map to reflect the shifting priorities and identify possible unintended consequences. The goal of these ecosystem maps is to become increasingly nuanced, even messy, capturing the interconnected nature of a complex design challenge. As an example, consider the first roadblock: The provincial government announced a pilot plastic ban initiative. However, the ban is selectively implemented, covering only the broader community areas and excluding upscale tourist zones. Following this roadblock, students are tasked with analyzing the policy’s implications: Who stands to benefit from this selective ban? Who remains excluded or disadvantaged? This roadblock highlights the tensions between economic priorities and equitable environmental action, prompting students to consider how policy decisions shape social and ecological outcomes. As students iterate on the scope of their ecosystem maps and engage with new perspectives, they draw upon prior experiences and knowledge developed in other contexts. Kumpulainen and Lipponen (2010) emphasize that when students carry their "funds of knowledge" (p. 48) across settings, these integrations strengthen students' agency and promote engagement beyond the classroom. Therefore, learning becomes meaningful in the broader context of students’ lives and their future. Thus, the simulation is not merely a pedagogical tool but a dynamic learning tool that fosters agency and autonomy. It can support moments of validation, redistribute participation opportunities, and create space for students to reflect on their influence on the design project. Clarke et al. (2016) argue that even brief moments of successful engagement, where students recognize their own impact, can catalyze more profound shifts in how they view themselves as learners and as designers. [1] https://miro.com/

Participants

The participants in the study will be drawn from a non-random, convenience sampling of all students enrolled in the undergraduate design course INFO 300: Information and Data Design. The course typically has an enrollment of 30-35 students in their 2nd and 3rd years of study and is scheduled for the Winter 2 semester (January–April 2026). The course attracts students from a wide array of faculties and academic programs. In its most recent iteration (Winter 2025), participants came from various faculties and programs (see Table 2), creating a genuinely interdisciplinary environment. Although INFO 300 is an undergraduate course, graduate students from the School of Information are also eligible to enroll.

Procedure

Participation in the study will be entirely voluntary, and students may withdraw at any time without facing any academic or personal repercussions. Their decision to participate—or not—will not impact course grades, standing in the program, or their relationship with the instructor. Before the study begins, students will be informed of their rights and provided with clear instructions on how to withdraw if they choose to do so. Additionally, the teaching assistant will provide a consent form to students at the beginning of the semester (see Appendix B). This ensures that student autonomy is respected, and ethical research standards are maintained throughout the study.

Voluntary Participation and Data Handling

The simulation is solely designed as a learning experience and will not be assessed for course grades. Furthermore, as both the instructor and researcher, I will not have access to the raw research data (e.g., questionnaires and reflective audio logs) or information regarding which students chose to participate until after the final course grades are finalized and submitted. This approach ensures that students’ decisions regarding participation do not influence their academic standing. Students may withdraw from the study at any time by emailing the teaching assistant with the subject line “Withdraw from Study Participation.” No reason is required, and any data collected up to that point will be excluded from the study whenever possible. For students who withdraw, their presence may still appear in the field notes, albeit in a general, non-identifiable way. I will avoid detailed descriptions or attributing specific actions or behaviours to these students. If their participation in class activities overlaps with group interactions, any incidental mentions will be anonymized. However, once data has been fully anonymized and combined with that of other participants, it may not be possible to remove it. Nevertheless, I will make all reasonable efforts to respect and minimize the inclusion of data from participants who have opted out. I plan to divide the data collection into the following two phases:

Phase 1 – Quantitative Measurement of Perceived Agency (February 2026)The goal of this initial phase is to gain an initial understanding of participants' perceived sense of agency. This phase will employ survey methods to provide context for later findings. Specifically, questionnaire 1 will ask students about their perceptions of agency as they navigated the first roadblock of the design simulation scheduled for the week of February 11. Demographic data, such as gender and program of study, will be collected at the course level, provided by the university to each instructor.

Phase 2 – Qualitative Measurement of Demonstrated Agency (February to March)            

The second phase focuses on gathering students' reflective insights and assessing the results of the simulation experience upon its completion. The goal is to gain a deeper understanding of how students interpret their agency and overall learning journey throughout the simulation. The data collection during this second phase consists of three instruments: questionnaire 2, the reflective audio logs, and weekly field notes.The combination of these data sources offers rich insights into how students perceive their own sense of agency, assess their work in a dynamic and complex environment, and adapt to the challenges presented by the design simulation, particularly the roadblocks.