Integrating Human-Centered Design into Undergraduate STEM Capstone Courses: A Food Product Development Case Study

Abstract

This study examines the integration of human-centered design (HCD) in a Food Science capstone course and explores its impact on students’ learning outcomes and skill development. This case study investigated how 42 undergraduate students engaged with HCD processes—including understanding, synthesizing, ideating, prototyping, and implementing—to develop innovative food products. Through pre- and post-surveys, interaction analysis, and performance assessments, the findings revealed that HCD activities significantly enhanced students’ knowledge, collaboration, creativity, and metacognitive skills. Additionally, students demonstrated improved food science competencies, such as product formulation and sensory evaluation. This study highlights the benefits of embedding HCD within STEM curricula to foster authentic, interdisciplinary learning experiences. The findings provide evidence-based recommendations for scaling HCD integration in applied STEM courses, emphasizing the need for structured scaffolds and iterative feedback to maximize learning outcomes.

1. Introduction

Human-centered design (HCD) is a problem-solving approach that involves using design thinking (DT) methodologies to identify the unmet needs of a population in order to collaboratively and iteratively develop innovative and meaningful solutions (Brown, 2008). The integration of HCD in higher education can help undergraduate students come up with creative solutions to authentic and complex problems that are relevant to their field of study (Baltador et al., 2024; Withell & Haigh, 2013). Researchers argue that when engaged in HCD, students can develop human-centered, metacognitive, collaborative, experimental, creative, and communicative mindsets (Crismond & Adams, 2012; Culén & Gasparini, 2019; Goldman et al., 2012; Razzouk & Shute, 2012; Royalty, 2018). These mindsets match what employers are seeking in 21st century employees (Prinsley & Baranyai, 2015; Jang, 2016). Universities are increasingly investing in integrating HCD in their programs as a means for students to experience and develop these mindsets in addition to disciplinary knowledge (Konkel, 2024; McLaughlin et al., 2022; Wrigley & Straker, 2017); however, little is known about the integration of HCD in existing higher education courses, especially STEM courses outside technology and engineering. As a result, research studies that investigate the design and implementation of HCD pedagogies into existing higher education STEM courses are needed to inform future initiatives and address the challenge of scaling up the integration of HCD in existing higher education STEM courses.

Studies that have included the integration of HCD pedagogies in higher education STEM courses reported positive impacts on students’ learning outcomes (Bawaneh & Alnamshan, 2023; Dotson et al., 2020; Hsiao et al., 2017). Nevertheless, the majority of the work presented in these studies has been reported in the context of technology and engineering, two STEM disciplines that lend themselves ideally to HCD integration. Further, these studies examined this integration solely from a theoretical or design-focused lens, rather than through empirical evaluation. As such, studies are needed to (1) explain how to guide the integration of HCD into applied STEM courses using existing HCD models and theories, (2) examine how students that implement the processes of HCD perform on course activities, and (3) reassess how the implementation of HCD throughout a course impacts students’ ability to successfully practice course learning outcomes.

To address these gaps in the literature, this case study describes the integration of HCD pedagogies into a Food Science capstone course called “Food Product Development”. This case study explores students’ experiences in this course to provide evidence-based insights that can support instructional models that can be used to effectively teach about and through HCD in existing higher education STEM courses, and in particular capstone courses or courses with a capstone experience. These models represent a necessary step that is needed to overcome the challenge of integrating HCD in existing courses and scaling up the integration of HCD in these courses.

2. Background

2.1. Human-Centered Design and STEM Education

Human-centered design is a problem-solving approach that is derived from the blending of engineering methodologies, social sciences, and the liberal arts (Goldman & Kabayadondo, 2017). It is used to tackle problems that are often ill structured or ill defined and are not conducive to conventional or incremental methods for solving problems (Buchanan, 1992). When implementing HCD, designers put humans at the center of the design process, empathize with them, understand them, collaborate with them, and involve them in these processes in order to arrive at a meaningful and desirable solution (Zhang & Dong, 2008).

HCD processes involve the implementation of practices such as interviewing people, brainstorming and communicating ideas, and building and testing prototypes (Brown, 2008; Brown & Katz, 2011; Goldman & Kabayadondo, 2017). HCD is not a linear set of processes that one initiates to solve a problem; it is best described as “a system of spaces” (Brown, 2008, p. 4). Figure 1 shows the HCD taxonomy that summarizes the five human-centered design spaces, Understand, Synthesize, Ideate, Prototype, and Implement, that guide the divergence or convergence thinking that characterizes the HCD approach (Lawrence et al., 2024). Figure 1 shows that each space is composed of four processes (Lawrence et al., 2024). Research shows that applying HCD results in more innovative and human-centered products, services, or experiences compared to traditional innovation approaches (Meinel et al., 2020).

Researchers argue that HCD processes and practices are not only for designers (Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013; Wrigley & Straker, 2017). They can also benefit non-designers and support their development of life-long problem-solving skills (Micheli et al., 2019; Razzouk & Shute, 2012). For example, HCD projects and experiences engage individuals in exploring and defining problems, developing solutions to problems, and sustaining and evolving these solutions (Dym et al., 2005; Panke, 2019; Razzouk & Shute, 2012). As individuals learn and practice these skills, they may eventually develop mindsets such as human-centeredness, metacognition, collaboration, experimentation, creativity, and communication (Crismond & Adams, 2012; Culén & Gasparini, 2019; Goldman et al., 2012; Razzouk & Shute, 2012; Royalty, 2018).

Addressing and solving complex, real-world STEM problems usually requires (a) understanding of particular populations to design better solutions (Sun, 2017), (b) systemizing the problem solving process to understand how different parts influence each other and the whole problem solving process (Culén & Gasparini, 2019), (c) collaborating with team members and other teams to frame spaces in which multiple dialogs can take place (Culén & Gasparini, 2019), (d) conducting experiments and running iterations, (e) developing innovative and creative solutions, and (f) communicating problem-solving processes and findings (Fortus et al., 2005; Purzer et al., 2015). HCD processes and mindsets coincide with the latter processes of solving authentic STEM problems. Given the relevance of the HCD processes and practices to problem-solving in STEM and their potential for guiding students to generate meaningful and useful solutions to problems, researchers claim that when students implement HCD to solve a STEM problem, they learn STEM content, engage in authentic STEM practices, and develop 21st century mindsets that prepares them to be lifelong learners (Carroll et al., 2010; Siverling et al., 2019). Despite this, empirical studies, outside of engineering and technology, which integrate HCD in STEM courses, examine students’ implementation of the HCD processes, and evaluate the impact of the course on students’ learning experiences are lacking. Findings from these studies have the potential to provide insights on how HCD processes can be employed in these courses to help students solve an authentic STEM problem through the design and development of meaningful and useful solutions.

2.2. Integrating Human-Centered Design in Higher Education STEM Courses

In response to employers’ demands, in recent years, calls for educational reforms in colleges and universities have become more frequent (AAU, 2013; ABET, 2018). These calls emphasize engaging STEM students in curricula and instruction that help them to acquire 21st century mindsets as well as disciplinary knowledge. Evidence from STEM education research shows that traditional teaching approaches that focus on the didactic transmission of information do not necessarily provide learning opportunities for students in which they can construct knowledge and actively engage with disciplinary content (Freeman et al., 2014). Further, these approaches do not provide opportunities for students to practice and develop their collaboration and problem-solving skills, which are central for success in today’s STEM workplaces.

To better prepare students to be successful workforce contributors, many colleges and universities are implementing constructivist instructional pedagogies to help students acquire these skills (Wright & Wrigley, 2019). These pedagogies are supported by theoretical stances that emphasize experiential and social roles in learning (Dewey, 1916; Vygotsky, 1976) and include engaging students in hands-on problem-solving activities where they need to interact with others to learn. The design, implementation, and evaluation of these pedagogies usually rely on four design principles: (a) defining learning goals that result in deep understanding, (b) providing scaffolding tools that support students’ and teachers’ learning, (c) creating opportunities for formative assessment and revisions, and (d) promoting students’ participation (Barron et al., 1998). These pedagogies are shown to help students develop their skills as well as learn disciplinary knowledge (Hmelo-Silver, 2004; Krajcik & Blumenfeld, 2006).

A design-based pedagogy is a constructivist instructional pedagogy that is defined as an “educational environment with instructional scaffolds that allow students to solve problems through the practice of design” (Royalty, 2018, p. 138). It is characterized by addressing primarily non-designers, presenting design challenges that are open-ended and extend beyond the context of the classroom, and placing students in interdisciplinary teams and engaging them in processes designers usually employ (Royalty, 2018). Specifically, a design-based pedagogy that features HCD engages students in activities to empathize with stakeholders to identify their unmet need and then collaborate with them to iteratively develop meaningful and useful solutions that satisfy this need. Such a design-based pedagogy creates a relevant, authentic context that motivates students and guides them to identify real-world problems and figure out solutions that are meaningful and useful to their communities.

Researchers argue that design-based pedagogies provide learning opportunities for students to practice and develop 21st century skills and prepare them to be lifelong learners (Goldman & Kabayadondo, 2017; Koh et al., 2015; Mayer & Schwemmle, 2025; Noweski et al., 2012). In addition, research studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of design-based pedagogies in teaching STEM content and practices through design (Dym et al., 2005; Fortus et al., 2004, 2005; Harris et al., 2015; Kolodner et al., 2003). Nevertheless, the majority of this research takes place in elementary and upper secondary classrooms. In contrast, less empirical evidence exists about designing, implementing, and evaluating design-based pedagogies, specifically those that feature HCD, in higher education STEM classrooms outside of engineering and technology. Findings from these studies provide insights that can inform the design and development of instructional models and tools that can facilitate students’ learning about HCD processes and STEM content and practices through HCD.

3. The Purpose of This Study

The purpose of this case study is to (a) evaluate the impact of a Food Science capstone course on students’ knowledge of implementing the HCD processes and mindsets and acquiring the food science competencies set by the course and (b) examine how HCD pedagogies were implemented in the course to foster students’ engagement in HCD activities and processes to develop a food product. The study answers the following research questions:

(1)

What was the impact of learning about and through HCD on the students’ knowledge of performing the HCD processes and developing HCD (i.e., certain 21st century) mindsets?

(2)

Did students acquire food science competencies (as defined by the course learning outcomes) during the Food Science capstone course that implemented learning about and through HCD processes?

(3)

How did students manifest the use of the HCD processes to develop a novel food product in a Food Science major capstone course?

4. Methods

4.1. Design

This study is part of a broader design-based research initiative (McKenney & Reeves, 2018) led by a newly established center at a large Midwestern university to integrate human-centered design in existing courses. The integration mechanism follows the design, implement, and evaluate cycle (DiSessa & Cobb, 2004) where design strategists from the center collaborate with faculty to design the content and sequence of the course curriculum. Then, the faculty and teaching assistants implement the curriculum. Researchers from the center collect data to evaluate the implementation process and come up with evidence-based suggestions and recommendations that can guide future design and implementation iterations. This study was conducted in compliance with ethical research standards and received approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at our university.

This study took place in an undergraduate food science capstone course in which students solve authentic food science problems through developing novel food products. A case study approach (Yin, 2017) was used to investigate, in depth, how students implemented HCD within the real-world context of an actual food science course that integrated HCD activities in its curriculum.

4.2. Participants

Forty-two students (15 males, 27 females) took this course, working in nine small groups of four or five students per group. One instructor and two graduate teaching assistants (TAs) taught the course. One design strategist from the center worked closely with the instructor of the course and the TAs to design and implement the course curriculum. Thirty-five students provided informed consent prior to their involvement in the study, and all data were anonymized to protect their privacy and confidentiality. All students were seniors and were in the Food Science program offered at the university.

4.3. Curriculum Design and Implementation

Prior to the beginning of the course, the design strategist and the instructor of the course discussed the existing course learning outcomes, course calendar, activities, and assessments. Together, they decided on the new instructional content that was required to integrate HCD in the Food Science capstone course. Then, they co-designed new lesson plans, lecture and laboratory materials, experiential learning activities, and assessments (O’Bryan et al., 2022) following the design principles reported by Barron and her colleagues (1998).

Table 1. Major activities to teach students about and through HCD.

Activity Title	Description
Product Development Introduction	This class compared various product development processes and introduced students to a basic overview of the process of human-centered design. Steps of the process were connected to specific milestones within the course. An in-class ice breaker was utilized to encourage students out of their shell and to emphasize the importance of a creative and collaborative mindset while engaging in human-centered design.
Chopped™ Laboratory	This class provided students the opportunity to experience a hands-on application of the human-centered design approach within a single lab experience. They applied many steps of the approach in a short period of time, with a focus on developing their interview and empathy skills and applying it to a particular context. The challenge was framed similarly to the popular television show Chopped™. Teams were given two of three ingredients before the lab, with the mystery ingredient provided only right before they were asked to formulate a product.
How do I Interview?	This class introduced students to a basic overview of interview and observation skills to prepare them to engage in the Empathize process of the Understand space in the human-centered design approach. Examining initial assumptions and practicing seeking stories during interviews allowed students a low risk attempt at trying out these new skills.
Supermarket Exploration	In-context observation allowed students to see how people are actually interacting with the spaces related to their design challenge. This activity asked them to explore competitor products and observe the behaviors of potential users. Observation notes were utilized during the synthesis session as additional qualitative data from which insights could be extracted. The analysis of competitor products helped prepare students for developing concepts that are truly innovative and unique.
48 Hour Diet Empathy Exercise	In an effort to embed empathy into the product development experience, student team members followed a 48 h modified diet or food waste collection that aligned with the team’s selected technical challenge. After completing their respective 48 h plan, teams included the data they collected in their Final Product Concept presentation and indicated how they would emphasize the strengths and minimize the weaknesses they experienced with their technical challenge in order to create a product that provided empathetic benefits to their consumer.
The Synthesis Laboratory	Synthesis is the most abstract portion of the human-centered design approach. This class required students to be flexible and trust the process presented to them. The more structure and preparation for potential issues prior to class that can be anticipated the better. Students identified key insights and began to craft early frameworks to articulate these insights. This lab set students up for a successful ideation session and was essential for articulating key insights from research.
The Ideation Laboratory	This class led teams through a structured process of generating ideas then helped to narrow a multitude of concepts into 3–5 potential solutions for evaluation. Students learned best practices for ideation, how to utilize their “How might we…” questions as a tool to generate ideas and for narrowing down concepts, and how to evaluate other team’s ideas.
Final Concept Presentations	In this class, teams presented their final concepts before moving to prototyping and formulating their products. The instructor, teaching assistants, and design assistants all provided feedback and evaluation to guide their next steps.
Incorporating Relevant Food Science Concepts	As this is the capstone course for Food Science majors at the university, the course strategically serves as an experiential learning space for students to practice applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating (Krathwohl, 2002) the fundamental field content has been introduced and practiced during the other courses in the curriculum. In addition,
Formulating Laboratories	At the end of the first 5 weeks of the course, during which student teams spend extensive time in the Understand, Synthesize, and Ideate spaces of human-centered design, teams then enter the prototyping phase during which they accomplish the following course learning goals: Evaluate functional ingredients for formula optimization Design appropriate quality assurance programs that ensure optimal quality shelf-life (raw materials through use) Design a unit operation process flow diagram (raw materials through distribution) Perform consumer panel evaluation of concept, package design, front and back label design, and product imagery Design packaging that provides barriers to degradation and communicates market claims, nutrition facts, ingredient statements, and allergen identification Adhere to all regulatory requirements of a food product marketed in the US (e.g., nutrient content claims, FDA/USDA Regulations, Health Claims, HACCP/HARPC requirements, GMPs, etc.)
Consumer Panels	The consumer sensory evaluation panel is one category of sensory science evaluation that is essential to the formal product development process. For this activity, students present two of their potential formulas to over 100 untrained panelists, asking the panelists to evaluate each formula for overall liking as well as specific attribute liking. After the panelist evaluation, scores are evaluated using mean score statistical analysis (e.g., t-test) to determine which formula is preferred by consumers. Understanding which formula is preferred enables the student teams to focus on optimizing one formula during the remaining weeks of prototyping.
Technical Report Presentations	This presentation asks the student teams to summarize the scientific validation activities completed during the prototyping phase. The teams are instructed to treat the presentation as if they were giving a presentation to their company’s leadership team (i.e., Technical Vice President, Sensory Scientist, QA Scientist, Regulatory Scientist, Plant Manager, Procurement, Marketing, etc.) during which they are seeking approval to transition their product from the prototyping phase to the implementation (production plant commercialization) phase. In the presentation, the students are asked to clearly showcase their team’s scientific due diligence throughout the prototyping phase.
Final Product Presentations	This presentation asks the student teams to creatively take the audience through their human-centered design product development journey, highlighting discoveries and decisions made during the understand, synthesize, ideate, and prototyping phases. Scientific validation explanations should be included as necessary; however, the intent is to “sell” the product. Student teams are encouraged to treat this presentation as if they are seeking capacity funding to further launch their product, and they are giving a product pitch to potential investors that could provide them the capacity funding.

briefly describes the major activities designed to teach students about and through HCD during the course. Students performed these activities over a period of 16 weeks. Each week, students attended two 50 min lectures and one 4 h laboratory session.

In addition, prior to the beginning of the semester, the design strategist and the instructor of the course developed a one-day training session to introduce the teaching assistants to the HCD approach and prepare them for facilitating students’ learning experiences during the activities.

4.4. Data Sources

The students completed pre- and post-surveys to measure the impact of the course on their knowledge of performing the HCD processes, development of the HCD skills, and to assess if the students acquired the food science competencies. The survey was a 5-points Likert Scale with 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree. The items of the survey were developed based on the definitions and practices of HCD processes shown in Figure 1 (Shehab & Guo, 2021), the HCD mindsets, and the objectives of the course set by the instructor. In addition, a researcher collected the video and audio recordings of the Final Concept and Final Product Presentations from the six consenting groups. The researcher also collected the groups’ scores on pre-developed rubrics to assess the content and performance of the students on their Final Concept and Technical Report Presentations.

4.5. Data Analysis

To evaluate the impact of engaging in HCD activities on students’ knowledge of performing the HCD processes and mindsets, and to assess if students acquired food science competencies during the course, a paired sample t-test was conducted using the pre- and post-survey items.

In order to explore how students implemented HCD processes to develop a food product, two researchers performed interaction analysis (Jordan & Henderson, 1995) on the video and audio recordings of the Final Concept and Final Product Presentations of six student groups. The researchers used a coding scheme that is grounded in the definitions of the HCD processes outlined in Figure 1 and elaborated in Authors 2024. Each researcher independently reviewed both presentations for all six groups to identify evidence of specific HCD processes. Instances were coded when student actions or statements could be concretely mapped to one or more of the HCD processes. After independently coding all videos, the researchers met and discussed and resolved discrepancies through consensus.

In addition, to explore the relationship between the quality of students’ implementation of the HCD processes and the quality of their final products, the Pearson’s correlation coefficient was calculated using the scores of the six groups on the Final Concept Presentations and on the Technical Report Presentations. Pearson’s correlation was selected given the small sample size and the exploratory nature of the study.

4.6. Results

To evaluate the impact of engaging in HCD activities on students’ knowledge of performing the HCD processes and mindsets, and to assess if students acquired food science competencies during the course, a paired sample t-test was conducted using the pre- and post-survey items. The results are shown in

Table 2. HCD processes.

Space	Survey Item	Pre		Post		Paired t-Test
		Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Understand	I know how to develop goals for the project	3.57	0.70	4.40	0.50	t(34) = 5.96, p = 0.00 *
	I know how to review information that is related to the context of the project	3.34	0.87	4.49	0.51	t(34) = 6.94, p = 0.00 *
	I know how to document biases and predictions	3.34	0.94	3.97	0.62	t(34) = 3.42, p = 0.00 *
	I know how to conduct interviews with users	2.89	1.02	4.40	0.65	t(34) = 7.81, p = 0.00 *
	I know how to conduct observations that can inform my understandings of the users’ needs	3.29	0.89	4.40	0.60	t(34) = 6.11, p = 0.00 *
	I know how to locate resources that are associated with the project	3.46	1.17	4.09	0.56	t(34) = 3.06, p = 0.00 *
	I know how to identify extreme users	2.91	0.92	4.54	0.56	t(34) = 8.45, p = 0.00 *
	I know how to reflect on my biases	3.71	0.83	4.17	0.82	t(34) = 2.60, p = 0.01 *
	I know how to reflect on the projects’ motivations and stakeholders’ needs	3.26	1.17	4.23	0.69	t(34) = 4.52, p = 0.00 *
Synthesize	I know how to filter content for relevance and prioritize information	3.63	0.88	4.43	0.65	t(34) = 3.84, p = 0.00 *
	I know how to find themes and develop insights	3.57	0.92	4.43	0.65	t(34) = 4.91, p = 0.00 *
	I know how to identify design and research opportunities	3.46	0.85	4.31	0.58	t(34) = 4.25, p = 0.00 *
Ideate	I know how to come up with ideas for potential solutions to a problem	4.06	0.48	4.40	0.69	t(34) = 2.80, p = 0.00 *
	I know how to break down a problem into smaller actionable parts	3.91	0.61	4.37	0.60	t(34) = 3.31, p = 0.00 *
	I know how to develop a plan of action to solve a problem	3.89	0.63	4.37	0.60	t(34) = 4.09, p = 0.00 *
	I know how to come up with alternative solutions to a problem	3.86	0.69	4.20	0.72	t(34) = 3.43, p = 0.00 *
Prototype	I know how to create a prototype	3.03	0.92	4.20	0.76	t(34) = 6.02, p = 0.00 *
	I know how to communicate a proposed prototype to others	3.23	0.94	4.34	0.68	t(34) = 5.96, p = 0.00 *
	I know how to evaluate a prototype	3.06	1.00	4.11	0.72	t(34) = 4.88, p = 0.00 *
Implement	I know how to communicate a final design	3.14	0.97	4.54	0.66	t(34) = 7.41, p = 0.00 *
	I know how to develop a plan to execute a final design	3.00	0.97	4.20	0.72	t(34) = 6.13, p = 0.00 *
	I know how to create a functional iteration of a concept	2.71	0.89	4.11	0.83	t(34) = 6.94, p = 0.00 *
	I know how to plan for the sustainability of a final design	2.63	0.77	3.83	0.75	t(34) = 6.41, p = 0.00 *

* Significant, p < 0.05.

,

Table 3. HCD mindsets.

Survey Item	Pre		Post		Paired t-Test
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
I manage time effectively	3.86	1.00	3.89	0.99	t(34) = 0.22, p = 0.82
I think critically about different problems and solutions	4.00	0.77	4.37	0.60	t(34) = 2.61, p = 0.01 *
I am comfortable with reflecting on my own thoughts and actions	3.06	1.21	3.94	0.91	t(34) = 4.34, p = 0.00 *
I am comfortable with what is unknown	3.46	0.92	3.89	0.83	t(34) = 2.32, p = 0.02 *
I am comfortable in dealing with problems for which I cannot predict if they will be successfully solved	4.67	0.49	4.57	0.61	t(34) = 0.57, p = 0.57
I am comfortable trying new approaches to solve problems	4.20	0.72	4.51	0.56	t(34) = 2.06, p = 0.04 *
I am comfortable with making mistakes and learning from them	4.43	0.56	4.80	0.41	t(34) = 3.67, p = 0.00 *
I respect other people’s perspectives	4.60	0.55	4.89	0.32	t(34) = 2.95, p = 0.00 *
I share my knowledge with my teammates	4.14	0.88	4.74	0.44	t(34) = 4.58, p = 0.00 *
I accept the groups’ decision even if I have a different opinion	4.37	0.55	4.31	0.83	t(34) = 0.34, p = 0.73
I am comfortable collaborating with people with different backgrounds	4.51	0.51	4.54	0.56	t(34) = 0.24, p = 0.81

* Significant, p < 0.05.

, and

Table 4. Food science competencies.

Survey Item	Pre		Post		Paired t-Test
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
I know how to perform market assessment to determine uniqueness of a product idea	2.69	0.99	3.80	0.76	t(34) = 5.96, p = 0.00 *
I know how to create a product that can be marketed in the food category assigned	3.06	0.80	4.46	0.56	t(34) = 9.39, p = 0.00 *
I know how to evaluate functional ingredients for formula optimization	3.11	0.87	4.17	0.75	t(34) = 6.45, p = 0.00 *
I know how to design a unit operation flow diagram of product and process	2.86	0.94	4.11	0.72	t(34) = 6.09, p = 0.00 *
I know how to evaluate sensory profile (flavor, texture, appearance) of product	4.23	0.43	4.63	0.55	t(34) = 4.27, p = 0.00 *
I know how to design a testing protocol to evaluate the shelf life (quality/sensory) of product	3.31	1.11	4.11	0.76	t(34) = 3.91, p = 0.00 *
I know how to design packaging that provides barriers to degradation, market appeal, and nutritional information	2.46	0.98	4.06	0.80	t(34) = 8.47, p = 0.00 *
I know how to adhere to all regulatory requirements of a food product marketed in the US (e.g., FDA/USDA regulations)	2.63	0.94	4.14	0.88	t(34) = 7.64, p = 0.00 *
I know how to communicate the chemical, microbial, and processing challenges of a product in oral and written presentations	3.46	0.89	4.40	0.50	t(34) = 5.94, p = 0.00 *

* Significant, p < 0.05.

, respectively.

As shown in Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4, the results of the t-tests indicated significant differences across the majority of the items associated with students’ knowledge of performing the HCD processes, HCD mindsets, and food science competencies.

The interaction analysis of the Final Concept and Final Product Presentations described in Table 1 of the six groups revealed how the HCD processes manifested in students’ practices as the teams worked on their food product development project (see

Table 5. HCD practices in Food Science classrooms.

Space	Process	Example of HCD Practices in a Food Product Development Context
Understand	Explore	Researching issues with existing food products that are associated with the design challenge. Reviewing existing resources that can help one to understand the design challenge. Explicitly documenting biases, assumptions, and rationales behind design choices.
	Observe	Visiting markets to observe people’s interactions with similar food products. Visiting websites of related food products.
	Empathize	Conducting interviews with different stakeholders such as family members, friends, strangers, and nutritionists. Having an immersive experience through following a diet associated with their food product. Identified and interviewed people with extreme dietary issues.
	Reflect	Realizing the need for a food product that is inspired by the interviewed individuals.
Syntheses	Debrief	Communicating people’s needs and preferences. Condensing information to facilitate presentation. Using quotes from interviews to support decisions.
	Organize	Creating personas that help categorize and represent the needs of the different interviewed individuals. Explaining how observations and themes lead to the development of insights about the ingredients and health benefits of the food product.
	Define	Defining the purpose of the food product. Developing how might questions about the design of the ingredients, packaging, accessibility, and consumption of the food product.
	Interpret	Focusing next steps towards a specific need.
Ideate	Brainstorm	Listing all possible answers to one how might we question.
	Propose	Proposing a few ideas of a food product and asking for specific feedback. Generating alternative ideas of a food product in light of the feedback.
	Narrow Concepts	Selecting one concept of a food product and explaining and discussing its viability and feasibility.
	Plan	Discussing the plans for creating prototypes and implementing sensory testing, packaging, etc.
Prototype	(Re)Create	Mixing ingredients based on food science guidelines. Conducting sensory testing.
	Engage	Distributing product samples for users. Breaking down product ingredients and sharing labels.
	Evaluate	Performing further research on what texture can meet consumer needs and modifying product accordingly.
	Iterate	Changing the formula of the product multiple times in light of stakeholders’ feedback.
Implement	Develop	Using social media to share posts and stories associated with the product. Describing the product and obtaining comments on its implementation in the market. Discussing different potential venues to sell the product.
	Evolve	Identifying areas of advancement and modifications such as flavor, taste, texture, etc.
	Sustain	Identifying actions to sustain the product such as running tests that can inform the scaling of the product, looking for suppliers, experimenting additional ingredients, etc.
	Execute	Not applicable within the context of the course and the scope of the design challenge.

). For example, when students implemented the Explore process in the Understand space, they started by researching issues with existing food products that are associated with the design challenge, reviewed existing resources that can help them to understand the design challenge, and explicitly documented their biases, assumptions, and rationales for their choices.

To explore the relationship between the quality of students’ implementation of the HCD processes and the quality of their final products, the Pearson’s correlation coefficient was calculated using the scores of the six groups on the Final Concept Presentations and on the Technical Report Presentations. Figure 2 shows the correlation between the Final Concept Presentations scores and the Technical Reports Presentations scores.

There is a significant positive correlation between the Final Concept Presentation scores of the groups and their Technical Report Presentation scores, r(4) = 0.98, p < 0.01. This means that obtaining a high score on the Final Concept Presentation, where groups presented the outcomes of the applying HCD’s Understand, Synthesize, and Ideate processes, may have led to obtaining a high score on the Technical Report Presentation, where groups presented their final products as outcomes of HCD’s Prototype processes.

5. Discussion

The purpose of this case study is to (a) evaluate the impact of a Food Science capstone course on students’ knowledge of implementing the HCD processes and mindsets and acquiring the food science competencies set by the course and (b) examine how HCD pedagogies were implemented in the course to foster students’ engagement in HCD activities and processes to develop a food product.

The findings show that the course activities had a significant positive impact on students’ knowledge of performing the HCD processes that compose each of the five spaces. Moreover, the interaction analysis indicated that students were able to apply specific HCD practices associated with these processes to make progress on designing a novel food product. These practices are different from traditional food product development practices within the food industry (Olsen, 2015). As shown in Table 2, these practices include empathizing with the consumers, immersing in their cultures and interactions with food, engaging consumers in prototyping, and telling the food product development story in different ways. These practices align with what students learn in other courses that aim at teaching food product innovation (Kuo et al., 2020). Consequently, this learning experience may have set the students up to better engage in future food development projects by involving the users and incorporating their needs into their development processes, such as ideation, prototyping, and implementation. Future research must follow up with students who took this course to assess if they are applying any of the HCD processes and practices in their workspaces.

The findings also show that the course activities had a significant positive impact on students’ development of skills associated with key mindsets, such as metacognition and acquisition of food science competencies. This indicates that the content, scaffolds, and sequence of implementing the course activities supported the students in not only learning about HCD but also through HCD. Although these activities were developed following design principles for effective constructivist pedagogies (Barron et al., 1998), showcasing the effectiveness of these activities in the context of a 16-week existing capstone course can guide the integration of HCD into applied STEM courses in higher education. As shown in Table 1, when integrating HCD, instructors need to explicitly teach students about the HCD processes and provide opportunities for them to practice these processes before applying them to make progress on the assigned design challenge. To do so, adopting an HCD model that can provide students with a flexible structure that can guide their HCD journey and helps them connect the learning outcomes from applying the HCD processes becomes necessary especially when they are non-designers and do not have prior experience with HCD (Lawrence et al., 2024). Moreover, instructors need to intentionally allocate in-class time for students to implement HCD processes, such as understanding and synthesizing, that may be challenging especially for STEM students who are more accustomed to ideating and prototyping. During that time, instructors can facilitate students’ engagement in these processes and provide appropriate feedback.

Finally, the findings show a significant positive correlation between the Final Concept Presentation scores, where groups presented the outcomes of applying HCD’s Understand, Synthesize, and Ideate processes, and the Technical Report Presentation scores, where groups presented their final products as outcomes of HCD’s Prototype processes. This indicates that understanding who you are designing for positively influenced the prototyping outcomes. Research that shows that HCD expands prototyping options and improves motivation and creativity supports this finding (Meinel et al., 2020). Nevertheless, another explanation can be that groups who succeeded in understanding the HCD approach, appreciate its processes, and practice its mindsets, especially collaboration, communication, creativity, and experimentation at early stages of the course, were able to build on this learning during prototyping to deliver better outcomes. More in-depth qualitative research is needed to test this hypothesis and further advance our understanding of students’ engagement in the HCD processes.

6. Limitations

This study has several limitations that should be addressed in future research. First, the reliance on self-reported survey data to assess students’ development of HCD processes and mindsets may introduce biases, such as overestimation or misinterpretation of their growth. Second, this study focused on a single cohort within a Food Science capstone course, limiting the generalizability of the findings to other STEM disciplines or educational contexts. Third, while the correlation between HCD implementation and prototype quality was significant, causality cannot be established, and unexamined factors, such as team dynamics or prior experience, may have influenced outcomes. Additionally, this study did not investigate why some students or teams were less successful in adopting HCD processes, which warrants further exploration. Finally, as HCD mindsets and practices require time to mature, the semester-long timeframe may have been insufficient for fully realizing their potential impact. In addition, this study did not investigate whether students applied these mindsets and practices in novel situations.

7. Conclusions

Integrating human-centered design in higher education undergraduate STEM capstone courses is challenging; nevertheless, it has many advantages. First, it contextualizes the problem in a real-world hands-on project, which gives it more authenticity. This means that students can actually embody the role of a design team who are working on a challenge that is currently facing a company, organization, or community. Second, instead of working randomly via trial and error, with HCD, students follow a flexible structure that can guide them through the problem-solving journey without eliminating the creativity factor which is usually lost once a set of instructions are given to solve an ill-structured task. Third, with HCD, the problem-solving space that is associated with the activity is broadened to include thinking about multiple dimensions and not only the one dimension of developing the food product. These dimensions can include the packaging, the design, the impact on society, environment, and the economy, and stakeholders’ needs. Fourth, with HCD, collaboration between students is maximized given that solving the problem will require different expertise that extends beyond just knowing about the food science concepts. The findings from this study show the positive impact of integrating HCD on students’ knowledge of performing the HCD processes that compose each of the five spaces and students’ development of skills associated with key mindsets, such as metacognition and acquisition of food science competencies.