Developing Beginning Design Students’ Self-Directed Learning Through Leadership Activity

Abstract

In response to the growing demand for interdisciplinary leadership education within higher academia, this paper presents an action research initiative entitled “Who Am I and What Do I Do as a Designer?” The study involved 14 first-year environmental design and planning students, aiming to foster leadership qualities like independent thinking and self-reflection. The transformative process spanned several phases, including collaborative assignment statement development, design topic selection guided by a diagnostic survey, peer-coaching sessions for constructive feedback, active participation in the design process, and a culminating phase of meaningful self-reflection on their roles as designers. Initially faced with the challenging question of their identity as designers, the students ultimately created designs that authentically reflected their unique designer personas. Notably, 92% of students reported a stronger sense of identity as designers and 70% highlighted significant improvements in time management and planning. This work underscores the vital role of design education in not only honing technical and adaptive skills but also nurturing personal and leadership growth.

1. Introduction

Ever-changing societal needs, global crises, constant technological advancement, and the generational mindset of students living through such conditions are a few factors shaping higher education learning communities (Guthrie & Priest, 2022; Seemiller & Grace, 2016). Effective educational practices and systems must be responsive to these changes, developing learners who grasp the “content” of their field of study or profession and have the capacity for adaptability, curiosity, critical thinking, and self-reflection on who they are and what they do. These capacities are critical for advancing higher education institutions’ broader mission of developing workplace professionals, engaged citizens, and leaders for careers and communities (Chunoo & Osteen, 2016).

Curiosity, critical thinking, self-reflection, and adaptability are essential outcomes of socially responsible leadership development (Higher Education Research Institute, 1996; Komives & Wagner, 2016) and leadership identity development (Komives et al., 2009), and are documented as necessary for making progress on organizational and community challenges (Heifetz, 1994; O’Malley & Cebula, 2015). Leadership is the work of higher education and is not limited to only leadership studies programs; using high-impact educational practices within any discipline creates the conditions to develop the capacity for self-directed learning and leadership (e.g., Kniffin et al., 2017).

In recent years, leadership education within higher education has seen increased attention paid to integrating leadership learning and development across disciplines (Sowick & Komives, 2020). Notably, there is a growing need for a customized approach in engineering (Kendall & Rottmann, 2022). Various academic fields, from agriculture to psychology, have explored leadership development approaches, but the application of leadership within spaces of design education remains unexplored. Interestingly, “design thinking” principles are emerging in leadership resources, such as Middlebrooks et al.’s (2018) book Discovering Leadership: Designing Your Success and Ekwerike’s (2022) application of community engagement as design in the work of social change leadership.

Scholars have expressed the need to align leadership education with complex problem-solving (Satterwhite et al., 2020). Further, Boyd et al. (2020) suggest that shaping the next generation of leaders requires developing a clearer understanding of the leadership learner. They highlight the importance of starting with students’ current development levels for transformative learning experiences. To facilitate self-directed learning in this context, providing students with resources, mentorship, and opportunities for reflective practice is essential.

2. Purpose and Approach

This application paper describes the process and outcomes of an action research approach to integrating leadership development into a first-year architectural design course. There are many variations in action research; in this case, we adapted classroom action research (Mettetal, 2001) as a strategy to improve teaching and learning and document the effectiveness of learning interventions in the design course. This paper is organized around a modified approach to classroom action research, working through the following steps: (1) clarify the context, (2) identify a question or problem related to student learning, (3) gather relevant information, (4) develop and implement a research plan (data collection), (5) analyze and make sense of the data, (6) identify key findings, and (7) make recommendations for future practice. Conducting action research can help educators to understand how their choices and actions inform more effective curricula and instructional strategies (Schmuck, 2006).

3. Description of Action Research Process

3.1. Institutional Context

The Environmental Design Studies Program at Kansas State University is the introductory program for students entering the College of Architecture, Planning and Design. It offers prerequisite and foundational courses for those pursuing graduate degrees in Architecture, Interior Architecture and Product Design, Landscape Architecture, or Regional and Community Planning. Most students begin their studies in this program.

Initial design studio sections within the program provide students with identical exercise statements, ensuring consistency across coordinated studios. Professors meet weekly to coordinate their teaching efforts. Additionally, the college offers first-year faculty the opportunity to experiment with a Faculty Workshop, allowing them to explore their interests and choices. This workshop is a structured, yet flexible, learning opportunity for faculty to deepen their understanding of specific pedagogical strategies, explore new teaching methods, and address challenges they may face in the classroom. During these workshops, faculty members engage in hands-on activities, discussions, and reflection to refine their teaching approaches. For example, this helps instructors like Author 1, a design instructor, integrate new concepts, such as leadership vocabulary and skill development, into their teaching. Through collaboration with Author 2, a leadership educator, the workshop provided Author 1 with the tools and knowledge to incorporate leadership principles into the design studio. This collaborative process helped prepare Author 1 to create a classroom environment that fosters leadership development while also supporting students’ growth as designers.

3.2. Identifying the Problem: A Checklist Mentality to Learning

Architectural design is the process of creating spaces that accommodate human needs and activities (Bashier, 2014). The first year of education in architectural design requires schools and instructors to provide intense curricula focused on the foundation of the design process and the necessary knowledge and technical skills to advance to upper-level studio courses (e.g., diagramming, orthographic drawings, perspective construction, and model-making). As a result, the courses often focus on what Petrie (2015) calls horizontal development—adding technical knowledge and design skills. However, the design process is more than just a set of technical skills; it is a way of thinking during which the many elements, possibilities, and constraints of architectural knowledge are integrated (Boyer & Mitgang, 1996). Practicing design can create the conditions for students’ vertical development, helping them develop the ability to think in more complex, systemic, strategic, and interdependent ways (Petrie, 2015).

Author 1 and her colleagues observed a phenomenon in students who were just beginning to learn the design process (who often had no background in design). When students found a project overwhelming, they defaulted to a checklist mentality—instead of wrestling with complexity for the sake of learning, they wanted to be given a checklist of steps, do them, and get a good grade. The challenge was to help students adjust to the unpredictable nature of design. Design is not about following set steps but exploring and experimenting. This can be daunting for beginner design students. They tend to prefer clear instructions, but design requires embracing uncertainty. Encouraging experimentation and embracing ambiguity helps students develop the creativity and resilience needed for successful design work.

4. Gathering Information

4.1. Data from Students

To better understand the “checklist problem”, Author 1 gathered additional information through student interaction in the classroom. First, she tried sharing the following suggestion with students:

Be more welcoming to ambiguity in the design process. Be more flexible. You need to get used to it.

Such advice was useful in calming students for a short time in order to move forward, but in many cases, the problem was not solved, and the same issues arose again. Even though it is impossible to turn the whole design process into a checklist, Author 1 tried to break down the process into multiple phases and give students a daily checklist to follow. For example, one of the checklists might have included steps like the following: 1. Sketch initial design concepts. 2. Review feedback from peers. 3. Refine design based on critique. 4. Incorporate specific materials into the design. 5. Prepare a brief explaining your design process. Ironically, students did not follow the checklist, and no tangible change was seen in their progress. When asked what prevented them from following the steps provided, students shared that they did not understand some of the items on the lists and that their daily schedules did not allow them to follow all steps accordingly.

These responses signaled that the learning process itself was an adaptive challenge, in which making progress required new learning and changes in values and beliefs; it cannot be solved by technical solutions alone (Heifetz, 1994; O’Malley & Cebula, 2015). The adaptive challenge was that first-year students tend to have others create checklists for them, which is impossible as a practical checklist needs to be created by the students themselves to include contextual and personal information. The instructor’s initial suggested solutions were not helpful because adaptive challenges cannot be addressed only with solutions given by experts or those in authority; solutions must be generated within and among the people with the problem (O’Malley & Cebula, 2015). Therefore, in responding to students’ concerns, the instructor changed her approach. Instead of giving suggestions, Author 1 used interpretations to start a mutual conversation between the students and herself. Offering multiple interpretations is a leadership practice that helps people make progress on adaptive challenges (O’Malley & Cebula, 2015). So, when students complained about the ambiguity of what needed to be done, she started to respond in the following way:

My interpretation is that you need a checklist to follow in the design process. Well, we all do need and create checklists for most of our daily tasks.

Such responses paved the way to productive conversation and helped students feel that they were not being judged, their concerns were understood, and they were not the only ones facing the same challenge.

This initial success of infusing leadership practices like interpretations in the design studio motivated the authors to experiment with applying leadership development strategies in a more systematic approach when educating beginner design students. This action research project aimed to investigate how a self-directed design process can help first-year design students develop their leadership skills. The results of this study can help design schools with curriculum planning to help students improve their technical skills and grow personally as a designer. As Boyer and Mitgang (1996) pointed out, offering a more open and flexible curriculum in architecture education allows students to explore their unique interests and aspirations. Simultaneously, it positions them to be more responsive to the evolving demands of the architectural profession and broader society.

4.2. Reviewing the Literature

Reviewing the relevant literature was another important step in gathering information within the action research process. For this design project, our conceptual framework drew from student learning, leadership, and leadership development literature. More precisely, we established connections among self-directed learning, adaptive leadership principles, and vertical leadership development. These elements collectively embodied an action-oriented approach and fostered a growth mindset.

4.3. Self-Directed Learning

Self-directed learning and other similar approaches, such as self-regulated learning or learning how to learn and its benefits (Meyer et al., 2008), have been investigated by many scholars. For instance, Field et al. (2015), in their paper Teaching Independent Learning Skills in the First Year: A Positive Psychology Strategy for Promoting Law Student Well-Being, argue the positive effects of self-directed learning on students’ well-being and learning outcomes. Self-directed learners take responsibility for their own learning and have internal motivation to develop, implement, and evaluate their approaches to learning (Knowles, 1975), and will therefore become self-reliant in their task engagement, which can be useful and practical in their later work lives (Din et al., 2016). In addition, incorporating students’ abilities is inherent in self-directed learning, which can influence students’ educational satisfaction (Griffioen et al., 2018). Self-regulated learning (SRL) brings the same values to the table but is strategic, involving a dynamic feedback loop in relation to achieving a specific task within a particular context (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2011). This feedback loop might look like continuously assessing how well a student is achieving their goals and adjusting their methods accordingly, ensuring that they stay on track and improve their learning processes within the specific context of their task.

Also, constant leaps in technology and knowledge access have made educators take the initiative in their own learning (Timothy et al., 2010). The International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE] (2007) Standards for Students also suggest that students need to be able to drive their own agendas and activities to develop solutions or complete a project. Mishra et al. (2013) believe that a self-directed learning environment should offer transdisciplinary and flexible experiences dealing with real-world or problem-based learning. In addition to being “relevant” to real-world challenges, responsible contemporary higher education also needs to be “reflexive” and to “foster an ethics of care” (Tassone et al., 2018, p. 349).

4.4. Adaptive Leadership

Heifetz et al. (2009) describe adaptive leadership as the act of mobilizing people to move through tough challenges and thrive. This action research project was informed by four principles of adaptive leadership that were most relevant to developing the capacity (mindsets and practices) of self-directed design learners. First, adaptive challenges are different from technical problems. Technical problems have clear definitions and can be easily solved by the knowledge of experts, whereas adaptive challenges require new learning and changes in values and beliefs. Also, the people with the problem do the work of solving adaptive challenges (Heifetz, 1994; O’Malley & Cebula, 2015).

Second, making observations and interpretations is a useful way to diagnose a situation (Heifetz et al., 2009; O’Malley & Cebula, 2015). The application of this was seen in the prior data-gathering description when Author 1 moved from the space of authority to a collaborator in the work by offering an interpretation and inviting discussion instead of only making suggestions. The third principle was that leadership is an activity (O’Malley & Fabris McBride, 2023). From this perspective, we assumed that leadership resides not only in people with authority or formal roles but in the relational interactions between people, space, and things. When viewing leadership from this lens, a fourth principle was that everyone can exercise leadership activity (O’Malley & Fabris McBride, 2023). Leadership is exercised through learning: observing, interpreting, and designing experiments (or new actions) (O’Malley & Cebula, 2015). The aim of using these leadership vocabularies with students in the self-directed assignment was not to add another layer of knowledge for students but to use them as connective tissue connecting different elements of the design process together. The adaptive leadership process was closely aligned to the action research, and was thus an appropriate frame for this project.

4.5. Vertical Leadership Development

Vertical development offers valuable insights into how individuals can enhance their leadership capabilities in ever-changing and complex environments. Developing leadership skills by seeking people’s transformation rather than just transferring information was introduced by Petrie (2014) in his paper Vertical Leadership Development–Part 1: Developing Leaders for a Complex World. He suggests the idea of vertical leadership development, which refers to “advancement in a person’s thinking capability”. Unlike horizontal leadership development, which focuses more on “adding knowledge and skills”, vertical leadership practices can help people improve in thinking systematically and interdependently (Petrie, 2014, p. 6). “If we imagine the leader’s mind as a cup, a vertically focused program places less emphasis on the content to be poured into the leader, which is the core of horizontal development, and more on the cup itself. So, by growing the size of the cup, the leader is more prepared to adapt his/her knowledge to different situations” (Petrie, 2014, p. 9). Petrie (2015) introduces three primary conditions for developing vertical leadership:

• Heat experience: Confronting a complex situation that disrupts and challenges our usual thought patterns.
• Colliding perspectives: Engaging with individuals holding diverse worldviews and opinions.
• Evaluated sense-making: Employing a structured process to integrate and comprehend various perspectives and experiences.

This study incorporated self-directed vertical leadership development strategies to create a self-directed assignment for beginner design students.

4.6. Developing and Implementing Research Plan

A self-directed assignment by which students could develop leadership skills and practice driving their own learning agendas was designed for one of the nine sections of ENVD 202 taught by Author 1. We integrated adaptive leadership vocabularies with architecture education and gave the first-year design students the opportunity to develop their leadership abilities both horizontally and vertically through a self-directed learning opportunity. The main learning objectives of the assignment regarding vertical leadership development and integrating it into design were to give the students the opportunity to do the following:

• Express themselves and develop their mindset, identity, and motivation as designers.
• Take a stand for what they believe in and what matters to them as designers.
• Understand their technical and adaptive challenges to improve as design students.
• Try to find ways that are unique to them to overcome or get better at challenges in the design process.
• Design what they have always cared about and bring their background and cultural aspects to it.
• Become more comfortable with ambiguities during the design process.
• Practice active listening in peer-coaching sessions.
• Drive agendas and lead possible changes for what needs to be done.

The participants included the 14 students of Environmental Design Studies who participated in the process for two weeks in the Spring semester. There were six female students and eight male students. Except for one international student, all students were from the United States. The following steps describe how the design project assignment was implemented. Data were collected within each phase of the plan after receiving Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval.

4.6.1. Phase 1—Co-Creating a Practical and Attractive Assignment Statement

The design project statement outlines a particular project’s objectives, scope, requirements, and expectations. It includes details such as the problem to be solved, target audience, design goals, constraints, timeline, and other relevant information. This document serves as a guide for designers and stakeholders, ensuring clarity and alignment throughout the project. In a short survey, students were asked to share their ideas about the content and graphics of an ideal written design project statement in order to engage the students in all levels of the self-directed assignment. This was carried out to incorporate elements of self-directed learning and invite the voice of students as “stakeholders”, a leadership practice of adaptive leadership (O’Malley & Cebula, 2015). Students were surveyed to identify deficiencies in typical design project statements they have encountered and to determine the characteristics of an ideal design project statement that would capture their attention and encourage them to read and utilize it more frequently. Based on the results, Author 1 designed the final design project statement to outline the project for students.

4.6.2. Phase 2—Diagnosing Survey to Choose Design Topics

For the second phase, students themselves chose what they wanted to design so that they could follow something that mattered to them and that they cared about. This was designed to create a “heat experience”, one of the conditions of vertical development (Petrie, 2015). To find such design questions, students were asked to rethink their goals for which they wanted to become designers through a diagnosing survey, whose questions were about the following elements:

• The reasons for which students decided to become designers.
• The things in the design field that mattered to students the most.
• The things they wished to learn in the first-year design studios.
• The technical problems and adaptive challenges they usually face during the design process (O’Malley & Cebula, 2015).

4.6.3. Phase 3—Sharing Feedback and Suggestions in Peer-Coaching Sessions

The students were given oral and written feedback and suggestions from the instructor and other students in peer-coaching sessions. The instructor facilitated multiple pin-up sessions to assist students in navigating their design development. These sessions occurred after students completed each task on their individualized to-do lists, which they created themselves. Each student arranged their design plans during these sessions, and teams took turns presenting their designs to the class. This experience created the developmental conditions for navigating colliding perspectives (Petrie, 2015).

4.6.4. Phase 4—Design

Then, students started a design process to find solutions and develop schematic designs for their proposed problems. Students translated their project’s programming (functionality) and concept design into environmental and spatial designs. Applying their design skills to something they cared about created the conditions for elevated sense-making (Petrie, 2015). The design process and final drawings were documented in an album made by each student (see also the examples later in this paper).

4.6.5. Phase 5—Reflection

Once the exercise was finished, the students reflected on what they had learned, with a particular emphasis on their leadership development, through a post-survey. The items of the reflection survey sought to answer the following questions:

• What did students learn about themselves and/or improve as designers in this exercise?
• What challenges did they face during this project?
• Based on their evaluation, how successful was this project?

5. Data Analysis

All the data in this study adhered to a protocol approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and encompassed information gathered from three diagnosing and reflection surveys, peer-coaching sessions, and the albums. Our analytic approach, informed by Elliot and Timulak’s (2021) descriptive–interpretive methodology, emphasized systematic analysis with a pragmatic aim, unfolding across three phases: data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing and verification. During the data reduction phase, responses from participants were condensed and synthesized, with particular attention given to identifying and selecting representative expressions and synonymous terms to facilitate subsequent data categorization. This process aligned with recommendations from Smith and Firth (2011) regarding effective data reduction techniques in qualitative research. Subsequently, participants’ responses underwent thematic analysis to uncover insights into how the self-directed design process contributed to students’ development as designers and leaders. This methodical examination aimed to discern patterns, themes, and connections within the dataset, shedding light on the potential transformative impact of self-directed learning in design education. Our choice to use thematic analysis drew from the work of Braun and Clarke (2006), who highlight its utility in identifying patterns and meanings across qualitative data.

The peer-coaching sessions facilitated collaborative feedback, guidance, and support among participants, yielding qualitative data on interactions, exchanged feedback, and shared reflections. Although not traditional participant answers like those from surveys, these data were instrumental in identifying patterns, themes, and insights crucial for assessing the efficacy of the coaching process. Likewise, albums documented participants’ design work, reflections, and progress, enabling the analysis of design decisions, thought processes, and their evolution over time. This provided additional insights into participants’ development as designers and leaders.

In summary, the peer-coaching sessions and albums offered valuable qualitative data, which was analyzed alongside survey responses. This comprehensive analysis aimed to identify patterns, themes, and insights crucial for understanding the impact of self-directed design on students’ development. Such an integration of multiple data sources aligns with Creswell and Poth’s (2018) recommendations for thorough qualitative research interpretation.

6. Findings

6.1. Phase 1—Co-Creating the Assignment

Since leadership is an activity, the first idea was to ask students what they wanted to learn and design. In contrast to conventional educational environmental design projects, on this occasion, students had the opportunity to design according to their preferences and in the manner they desired. By integrating students’ backgrounds and priorities in the design field, not only would their mindsets, identities, and motivations grow as designers, but they would also be able to use their own individual skills outside the design realm. The main goal was to have students become more independent both as designers and leaders.

In the pre-survey, we asked students if they were to create an exercise for first-year studios, what would you suggest? There was no consensus on this issue. Their suggestions ranged from an exercise on “architectural rendering” to a “basic exercise where you learn and go over everything that will be taught in the semester”. Among the most repeated answers was to give students “the freedom to design whatever they want with a set of required meaning” so they have the chance to “really get a feel for what you want to do next and how that will feel”. It should be noted that all first-year students at [college] decide which major they want to study and apply for it at the end of their first semester. They can choose between the four options offered by the three departments: Architecture, Interior Architecture and Product Design, Landscape Architecture, and Regional and Community Planning. Among their more technical suggestions were using computer software, analysis of sample case studies and similar built projects, and having more work time in the studio.

We also asked students what an ideal exercise statement would look like. An exercise statement is a brief and clear set of instructions or guidelines provided to students outlining the objectives, requirements, and expectations of a particular design task. These statements are meant to guide students in understanding the scope of the assignment, the skills they need to apply, and the desired outcomes. In our context, exercise statements in design studios are often focused on specific tasks, such as creating conceptual designs, analyzing a site, or addressing a design challenge within a set context. Graphics-wise, more than 70% wanted it “to be more like presentation” rather than a formal document (mentioned by 10 students). They also preferred “bullet points than massive walls of text” (mentioned by eight students), with more images and the use of color. They also asked for “a clear and concise summary page to sum up the project” and its “final deliverables” and “timeline” (mentioned by nine students). In addition, a “clear grade rubric with numbered values” was among the most mentioned qualities of an ideal exercise statement.

Content-wise, they asked for “details about the exact specification for what needs to be turned in”. Students also preferred the use of “simple wording” and wanted to have definitions of new design vocabulary. Showing precedents and “real-world applications” of the assignment expectations as a part of the exercise statement were also among their suggestions for an ideal exercise statement.

For coordinated assignments, they also suggested “a place for teacher comments/expectations since every professor expects differently”. We created the assignment together based on students’ comments and called it Who Am I and What Do I Do as a Designer? It should be mentioned that not all of their expectations were directly included in the final exercise statement. We shared the checklist demanded for the exercise. For example, students were asked to find precedents related to their design topics themselves to reinforce the fact that, as college students, they need to peruse what needs to be done and find the answers to the questions raised during the process. They also asked for definitions of new vocabulary to be included in the exercise statement. However, Author 1 presented a short lecture and had them take notes of the definitions on a page of the statement devoted to new vocabulary. Not only did they practice active listening, but it was also a good start to encourage them to take steps to learn what they needed. Also, a separate summary page with the most important points of the exercise was given to them, along with a blank table to create daily to-do lists to motivate them to plan the time for the things that needed to be done.

Even for the final deliverables, unlike other assignments, students were asked to propose individual lists of drawings and models with all their requirements to best present their projects. However, while the overall format and number of required drawings were set by the instructor, the types of drawings were kept flexible to suit each student’s chosen topic. Besides preparing these designs, students were also required to compile their individual entire design process—including sketches, research, conceptual drawings, and final outcomes—into a spiral-bound album on 11 × 17 inch papers, featuring custom-designed front and back covers that reflected their unique design identities. They were additionally required to write one paragraph answering who they are and what they do as designers and present it to their peers along with their final products. Exact details of the format and layout of the final album were explained on a separate page in short question-and-answer bullets, as suggested in the first survey on an ideal exercise statement.

6.2. Phase 2—Diagnosing Survey to Choose Design Topics

During the initial session, the students were confronted with two fundamental questions: “Who are you, and what do you do as a designer?” Despite their simplicity, none of the students could provide satisfactory answers. Consequently, they embarked on journeys through the design process to define their identity as designers to those outside the design sphere. This process began with diagnosing a problem and selecting a personally significant subject. Prompted to reflect on their past, students contemplated childhood inspirations and the objectives they aimed to achieve as designers. They also pondered the potential impact of their designs on the world, considering the transformations they could bring about.

A diagnostic survey was employed to help students uncover a design question that would truly reflect their individual identities as designers. This survey served as a brainstorming tool, aiding students in identifying and mapping their personal values. This process enabled the students to make well-grounded decisions aligned with their motivations. Additionally, the students were encouraged to contemplate the technical issues and adaptive challenges they typically encountered in their design processes. They were tasked with addressing these challenges in the survey and devising strategies to handle them more effectively. Furthermore, the students crafted a checklist outlining their personal objectives for this exercise, defining what they hoped to achieve through this process. Through this exercise, the students defined their objectives and proposed unique design contexts and clients, mirroring real-world practice.

6.3. Phase 3—Sharing Feedback and Suggestions in Peer-Coaching Sessions

Phase 3 encompassed a series of peer-coaching sessions where the students engaged in structured feedback and collaborative discussions. During these sessions, the students presented their proposed topics and approaches, initiating conversations facilitated by Author 1 and involving all participants. The atmosphere was one of active engagement, with students refining their ideas and receiving constructive input from their peers. This process combined technical feedback with critical thinking and reflection, honing essential skills such as giving and receiving feedback and fostering active listening and effective notetaking. The outcomes of these peer-coaching sessions were pivotal in shaping the final selection of design topics. The range of topics was diverse, spanning from grand-scale urban design concepts to intricate product designs, showcasing the breadth of creative ideas generated and the efficacy of the feedback loop in steering students toward viable and captivating projects.

To ensure that peers consistently employed observations, interpretations, and powerful questions during these sessions, we implemented a structured peer-coaching protocol that included explicit guidelines and sample prompts. These resources helped to clarify each feedback component and encouraged all participants to engage critically with one another’s ideas. Peer groups typically consisted of three to four students, a size chosen to promote focused discussions, foster mutual accountability, and allow every member’s voice to be heard.

The participants in the peer feedback sessions utilized principles and practices of adaptive leadership (Heifetz et al., 2009; O’Malley & Cebula, 2015) to stimulate reflective learning and deepen the students’ understanding of their design work. Interpretations offered diverse perspectives, observations highlighted strengths and areas for improvement, and powerful questions prompted deeper reflection, enriching the peer-coaching experience and fostering a culture of continuous improvement. While focusing on peer interaction, Author 1 played a supportive role, ensuring that discussions remained productive and aligned with project objectives. Feedback provided by the instructor, coupled with insights from relevant literature and course material, enriched the learning experience and encouraged students to explore various perspectives.

6.4. Phase 4—Applying Leadership Skills to Start the Design Process

To foster a stronger connection between students and their projects, we tasked them with answering the questions “Who are you, and what do you do as a designer?” by engaging in the entire design process and encapsulating their responses in two paragraphs. Analysis of these reflections and discussions revealed four core themes that characterized the students’ emerging design identities:

6.4.1. Breaking Conventional Boundaries and Embracing Creativity

Students repeatedly emphasized a desire to break free from rigid expectations, infuse creativity in their designs, and elevate environmental qualities. Many portrayed themselves as individuals who refused to work within narrowly defined parameters.

6.4.2. Family and Personal Background as Key Influences

Some students cited family members and personal histories as pivotal in sparking their interest in design. One student wrote, “My grandpa was a huge part of my life and college decisions; he is part of the reason why I consider myself a designer”. Another reflected, “I began my love for designing when I was little and my dad, who is amazing with woodworking, would sit down with me and draft out his next project and ask for my opinion”. These accounts illustrate how early exposure to creative processes and supportive family environments propelled students toward design disciplines.

6.4.3. Desire to Stand Out and Think Outside the Box

Being able to distinguish oneself was a recurring aspiration. As one student noted, “I do not want to be an average person. … I want to be remembered as a designer who always thought outside the box”. These statements underscore the importance of individuality and innovation in shaping students’ outlooks on their future professional roles.

6.4.4. Balancing Technical Mastery with Adaptive Growth

Students created tables (

Table 1. An example of one student’s table of technical and adaptive challenges.

Problems, Challenges, and Goals	What I Decided to Achieve	What I Did to Accomplish This
Technical Problems	Line weight Clarity of diagrams Consistency of sheet composition Hand lettering Margins Clean cut—align edges on models Daily sketching	Applied line weight to axons and diagrams Kept diagrams simple and conveyed more information through graphics than words Drafted hand lettering Did daily sketches as a break
Adaptive Challenges	Make the product up to par with process Staying focused in studio (after class, too) Push forward more of own ideas Help others and interact	Put out ideas as if they were the final Did not play music, documented the times I got distracted to remind me to keep working Put out more work than conveyed the design, not just the minimum
Personal Goals	Wake up at 8:00 a.m. Stay positive Have more evenings to self	Set up more alarms to wake up early Reminded myself of the joys I found in architecture when I was down

) that separated their work into technical problems and adaptive challenges. Line quality and line weight were the most repeated technical problems, reported by over 70% (10 out of 14 students). Other key technical issues included craftsmanship, managing smudges, and sketching daily. Meanwhile, time management surfaced as the most critical adaptive challenge, along with difficulties in staying focused, “thinking outside the box”, and deeper classroom engagement. Students also reported an intention to ask more questions and use textbooks more frequently, demonstrating a commitment to adapting their processes for better outcomes.

In Table 1, an example student showcases how they distinguished between technical problems (e.g., line weight, clarity of diagrams, consistency in sheet composition) and adaptive challenges (e.g., staying focused, pushing ideas further, helping others, and interacting). By listing clear goals, actions, and personal objectives—such as waking up early or remaining positive—students were able to reflect on how adaptive issues can intersect with technical ones, reinforcing the complexity of real-world design challenges.

Creating these tables encouraged ongoing self-assessment, serving as a checkpoint for students’ conceptual and practical understanding of technical vs. adaptive challenges. The conceptual overlaps between the tables also reflect the complexity of adaptive problems, which often contain both adaptive and technical elements (Heifetz et al., 2009). Through this exercise, students gained insights into their individual design identities, clarified specific areas for improvement, and began to see how personal development (e.g., managing time or sustaining motivation) can be as critical to design success as technical prowess.

6.5. Phase 5—Students’ Reflections on the Self-Directed Exercise

In a survey performed after the project, we asked the students to reflect on the assignment and what they learned doing it. Even though more than 92% of students agreed that the assignment did not change the reason why they decided to become a designer, they mentioned how doing this self-directed project helped “reinforce” and “solidify” their passion for design. They also declared how this short exercise “opened up to what about designing” they “enjoy”. Only one student mentioned a change in the reason why they decided to become a designer: “I now see that I get joy from innovation and change”.

We also asked about the top three things that they learned about themselves. It is worth mentioning that almost all of their answers related to adaptive challenges that they had mentioned earlier in the process, like time management, expressing their own identity, and engaging in the process. The following is an example of what they learned about themselves:

[I learned that] I like solving problems that I don’t have an obvious answer for; I know how to manage myself; and I know what changes need to be made and when.

In addition, they talked about the ways in which they improved as designers. Again, most of the answers were related to more adaptive aspects of design process, such as “setting goals”, “problem analysis”, “planning the process” and “doing things to better” the design and themselves and not just to meet the assignment’s requirements. Furthermore, we specifically asked about the individual skills they used for the first time in this project. Among the most repeated answers were applying critical thinking and observational skills, expressing individual identity, and breaking things down to better manage their time. They also mentioned how, by doing this project, they started to gain a new appreciation of the importance of process and trying to be more independent.

It showed me how important the process is and that I need to put all my ideas out, whether good or bad.

I learned what changes to make and when.

I am in a different mindset of attention to detail.

They also reflected on the challenges they faced during the project, including “designing a real-world project”, “changing the design multiple times to balance all the aspects in the project”, and making an album as the final product, which was very different from previous projects that they had done. They also wished they had more time to do this project as it was “more complex” for some of them than expected. For the self-evaluation part, on a scale of 1 to 10, more than 70% of the students gave themselves an eight or more for how successful they thought they were in this project:

I thought this project was really fun, and I learned a lot about myself as a designer and a person. I really enjoyed it.

I loved this project. It was nice to do something that felt related to what I hope to do with my career. It was hard, but fun.

I want to do more projects with more creative freedom, where I can be in control of the entire process.

6.6. One Student’s Work Example

One student’s work example is used here to elaborate on the project. The student chose to design a sidewalk they used to walk on to go to their primary school. The area was “disconnected from the neighborhood—where most of the students lived—by a divide of barren land and a building that would become a community association center”. They introduced how to intervene on the site in this way:

The design, Primary Block, provides a safe, fun place for children to stop by on their way after school or to meet up and play with their friends. Thus, the idea of primary shapes and colors, along with kid-friendly, block-like forms, becomes the foundation of the pavilion that joins the neighborhood and the school together.

The student was inspired by Louis Barragan’s work and studied his designs to understand real-world examples of designs with related concepts. Figure 1 shows the precedent study page of the student’s final album.

Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the final drawings of the Primary Block using rendering techniques to better illustrate how primary color was used to create a kid-friendly environment for primary schoolers. On the album cover page, the student mentioned this quote by Dr. Seuss from Happy Birthday to You: “Today you are You, that is truer than true. There is no one alive who is youer than you”.

7. Implications and Recommendations

As the drawings above illustrate, becoming a designer requires the ability to develop technical design skills. At the same time, integrating leadership development into a design course can inspire projects with purpose and meaning. The purpose of this application paper was to describe the process and outcomes of an action research approach to integrating leadership development into a first-year architectural design course. First-year education in environmental design requires schools and instructors with intense curricula to teach what students need to know to move on to the next years of education. Many students found the design process overwhelming initially as it differed from what they had previously experienced in school.

Initially, students found it challenging to give a reasonable answer to the question, “Who am I, and What Do I Do as a Designer?” To encourage more independent thinking and self-reflection, we allowed the students to choose what and how they went about designing. Students engaged in learning activities that expanded their capacity to approach technical and adaptive challenges in design. We intentionally integrated students’ backgrounds and priorities in the design field. By doing this, the students’ mindsets, identities, and motivations as designers grew, and they were able to leverage new approaches to work as they gained new technical skills. Specifically, the self-directed approach helped them to overcome technical challenges such as drawing clarity and time management, thereby directly addressing the study’s objectives; the detailed metrics of these improvements are presented in

Table 2. Study objectives, metrics, and key findings.

Study Objective	Metrics/Evidence	Key Findings
1. Develop a stronger identity as a designer.	- Reflection surveys: “I have a strong sense of identity as a designer”. - Open-ended question: “Why did you decide to become a designer?”	- 92% (13 out of 14) reported a stronger sense of identity by the end of the project. - Most students said the exercise “reinforced” or “solidified” their passion for design rather than changing it outright.
2. Enhance time management and planning skills.	- Post-project survey: “I effectively manage tasks and deadlines”. - Reflection: “What challenges did you face and how did you address them?”	- 70% (10 out of 14) noted clear improvements in time management or planning. - Students reported learning to break tasks into smaller steps and set personal schedules to stay on track.
3. Improve the clarity and craftsmanship of design drawings.	- Diagnostic survey on technical problems (line quality, model craftsmanship). - Instructor and peer observations.	- 70% of students explicitly named line weight, line quality, or preventing smudges as a main focus area. - The final deliverables showed more consistent line weights, cleaner presentation boards, and reduced smudging.
4. Foster self-directed learning and leadership mindsets.	- Pre- and post-surveys on “checklist” vs. “self-directed” attitudes. - Reflection prompt: “Top 3 things you learned about yourself in this project”.	- Students demonstrated ownership of the process by writing individual to-do lists and diagnosing both “technical” and “adaptive” challenges. - Post-project reflections indicated a shift toward viewing themselves as the “leaders” of their own learning and design decisions.

.

From a teaching and learning perspective, the success of this action research hinged on the student-driven nature of the design projects, which is in stark contrast to teacher-driven methodologies. This approach empowered students to identify and solve design problems autonomously, fostering a sense of ownership over their projects. Becoming more self-directed reflects a stage transition within vertical leadership development from dependent to interdependent (Petrie, 2014). This transition is parallel to Komives et al.’s (2009) description of stage progression within leadership identity development. The process and design outcomes were led by students themselves, guided by self-motivation and peer feedback. This is different than the standard design teaching problems and curriculum, which begins with teacher-driven work. This also results in transformational learning through individual experience, as seen by Cranton (2016) and described by Mezirow (2000) in transformational learning theory.

Horizontal development—in this case, of the technical design skills needed to be a successful designer—is certainly the major core of first-year design programs. However, this study reinforces the necessity of including vertical leadership development opportunities for students in the first-year design curriculum. Vertical development is about growing the capacities (identity, mindset, and mental models) necessary to enable students to think and act in more complex, systematic, strategic, and interdependent ways (Petrie, 2014). Instructors can create the conditions for vertical development through assignments that disrupt usual patterns of thinking and action (Petrie, 2015). Additionally, integrating students’ identities and backgrounds into studio projects supported instructors’ efforts to help first-year design students better address the adaptive challenges (e.g., work processes and relationships) they faced while adjusting to the new atmosphere of design school.

Set on this development trajectory, students may be more likely to engage others in leadership activities as they move into upper-level studios, as Petrie (2015) identified. It should be noted that not all students have the same background and tool kit in the design realm, so not all start at the same level of development. Thus, instructors must acknowledge and support learners from “where they are” (O’Malley & Cebula, 2015).

This project focused on the integration of leadership learning in the design classroom. Our findings support Xerri et al.’s (2018) assertion that as students become more independent in their education, they will make better sense of their individual purpose in higher education and become more motivated to engage in academic activities. The conceptual framework illustrated in Figure 5 shows how design students can become more independent in their education by using their background skills and learning technical and adaptive thinking skills.

Our project also strengthens the call to further explore the integration of leadership education across educational contexts and disciplines (Sowick & Komives, 2020). Our findings reflect the previous leadership education literature. By taking an action research approach, we illuminated how learners made meaning of their experience through the interdisciplinary lens of leadership as they engaged in discipline-specific problem-solving (Boyd et al., 2020; Satterwhite et al., 2020). Adaptability, critical thinking, and self-reflection reflect the essential learning outcomes of higher education institutions (AAC&U, n.d.). Further, we demonstrate how leadership learning as a collective, interdisciplinary effort supports the broader purposes of higher education to prepare people for career success and civic engagement (Chunoo & Osteen, 2016).

The insights from this practice paper inform future research and practice for leadership educators, specifically those who engage in higher education courses and co-curricular programs. Leadership educators should look for opportunities for partnerships with disciplinary faculty to enhance leadership development across campus and/or communities. Additionally, future research can expand on the frameworks presented in this paper to analyze the outcomes of student-led projects at larger scales and in varying educational contexts. Educators should consider integrating conditions for vertical development (e.g., heat experiences, multiple perspectives, and enhanced meaning-making) into assignment designs to foster a shift from dependence to interdependence and eventually interdependence as learners. Introducing concepts related to adaptive leaders, specifically technical and adaptive challenges, can create a shared language to help students reflect on their own learning process engagement. Additionally, framing leadership activity as an adaptive learning process opens new possibilities for understanding leadership as an activity that anyone can do. We invite leadership educators to consider utilizing classroom action research as a tool to improve their own teaching and enhance their curriculum. Additionally, educators should consider how action research could be utilized with students more directly as a pedagogy for leadership development. Future research should examine the long-term impacts of integrating leadership development into design education, particularly considering how it influences both technical skill acquisition and adaptive leadership over time. Comparative studies across various design disciplines and institutions could further illuminate best practices for fostering these dual competencies. Additionally, exploring the effectiveness of action research as a pedagogical tool may offer valuable insights into optimizing curricula that support student success and professional growth.