The fields of Psychology - in general – and Educational Psychology - in particular - have a great deal to offer architectural educa-' tors and students in their search for training and becoming a better problem-solver and Designer. Understanding the human nature of Thinking and reasoning mechanisms, as the central issue of the Design process, makes the major content in this article. This article reviews the subject of "Thinking" and all related categories of: "types", "modes", and "styles" of Thinking with respect to Design. The subject of "interactive" model of Thinking and Design process, as the most comprehensive model of Thinking, has been introduced in this article. For this purpose, the Iowa State University's "Complex Thinking Processes" model - which defines an interaction between "Content/Basic", "Critical", and "Creative" Thinking - is integrated with a proposed model for Design methodology - which introduces an interaction between three stages of "Understanding", "Idealizing", and "Presenting". At the end, some educational recommendations have been made in an attempt to set an educational methodology for Architectural Design education.

Design Thinking has been the subject of diverse studies since early 20th Century. This paper briefly reviews the research in this area since 1930s. To effectively compare the work of twenty-four researchers on this subject, their ideas are tabulated to show how different types of knowledge are recognized leading to diverse Design processes and various Design Thinking strategies.

To assess the impact of including Design Thinking within the work and technology curriculum on students’ mental habits, a semi-experimental study with pre- and post-tests was conducted. Participants in the study were junior high school students totaling 120 in six classes across all three grades. One of the two classes of each grade was taught utilizing Design Thinking. The data on students’ mental habits were collected using a translation of a known questionnaire with acceptable validity and reliability. However, the internal consistency of the translation was calculated to be 0.85. Covariance analysis of the collected data revealed that the experimental groups across all grades exhibited improved mental habits and the inclusion of Design Thinking in the curriculum can help students with habits such as problem solving, creative Thinking, critical Thinking, lifelong learning, flexibility in thought and behavior, empathy, and mutual understanding.

Research Problem: To elevate the quality of human living spaces and it is imperative to focus on the significance of meanings within architectural Design. Augmenting architectural Designs hinges on the cultivation of Designers' Thinking abilities. Studies in the domain of "Designerly-Design Thinking", which is one of the study areas in Design research, explore how Designers think when when confronted with Design issues, problems and challenges. This research seeks to elucidate the influence of the Designerly-Design Thinking paradigm on the enrichment of architectural creations and the refinement of the Design process, especially in education; Consequently, it delves into the viewpoints and theoretical underpinnings of the Designerly Thinking paradigm, scrutinizes acknowledged Design Thinking models, and examines the interrelation between these constructs.Research Question: The research deals with this main question: How can the theoretical structures of the Designerly Thinking paradigm and its practical models be used to improve architectural Design?Research Method: The research employs comparative strategies to compare the theoretical discourses of the Designerly Thinking paradigm and to compare various Thinking models. Theoretical discourses and practical models have been examined separately from the aspects of approach, time, background knowledge, features and processes; and the results of this section, which are presented in tables and diagrams, lead the research towards the main concepts in the theoretical frameworks of the Designerly Thinking paradigm, key characteristics in the Design Thinking models, and also the identification of models that They can be effective in the process of architectural Design. utilizing logical reasoning to analyze the connection between theoretical frameworks and practical models and it has been tried to extract the characteristics of each approach and to identify the barriers to their effectiveness in Design. Finally, through the application of logical reasoning and content analysis, with the aim of trying to remove the obstacles and with precision in the models that can open the way in the architectural Design process, the research proposes the potential for a Holistic and integrated Designerly-Design Thinking model tailored for architectural Design.The Most Important Results and Conclusion: The findings of the article suggest that the gap between the theoretical constructs of Designerly Thinking and Design Thinking models poses difficulties not only for non-Designers, but also for Designers in effectively utilizing this paradigm; and it is necessary to carefully consider the effect and interaction between them. The academic discourse of Designerly Thinking pays a lot of attention to the theoretical constructs of the paradigm and methodological approaches as well as their relationships; While the discourse of Design Thinking mainly focuses on proposed actions, tools and techniques; and for this reason, according to many experts, none of these two approaches have been able to have the desired efficiency and effectiveness in Design. The results are presented in a tabular format in order to pay attention to the different tiers of the paradigm, a proposal of the initial form of an architectural Design model based on the Designerly-Design Thinking paradigm, and also to express the general characteristics of this model This table underscores the differentiation among the five levels of "theoretical frameworks", "methodological approaches", "methods", "techniques" and "tools" in the Designerly-Design Thinking paradigm, elucidates the function of each level, and underscores the importance of establishing a productive interrelation between these levels. The initial version of this model, for tackling complex architectural Design issues, including five phases: "discovery and understanding", "definition and interpretation" (problem space); "ideation", "testing and development" (solution space); and "evolution". This model searches for problems and solutions from a human-centered perspective; and it refers to the integration that emerges from a holistic and systemic approach to Thinking and it can be effective in improving architectural Design education.

Introduction: Urban Design as an evolutionary, multidimensional, and context-oriented process is the ground of multifaceted interactions of tendencies that shape the relationship between humans and the built environment in the public sphere over time. Also, this field derives the legitimacy of its theories from various intellectual roots and professional practices. Therefore, it is affected by a wide range of constraints, multiplicity of stakeholders, and complexities of making decisions in regard to the process of Design. Some find dissatisfaction with the multiplicity of urban Design due to its ambiguity, and some see it as a subset of a larger group such as the political economy of space, urban studies, urban planning, landscape Design, sustainability, and architecture. Urban Design requires a kind of interdisciplinary collaboration that the stakeholders in the position of Design professionals, managers, investors, and space users can reach a common understanding of their activities. This common understanding comes about through the integration of science and methods in an integrated process. On the other hand, creativity is an integral part of the plan production process in urban Design. Interpersonal creativity in this Design process can be realized by creating a platform for the presence of creative people and creating shared creativity in an interactive way. This platform requires a collaborative Design process; But currently, the plan production stage in urban Design is often done in a partial and separate way by Designers and without meaningful collaboration of other stakeholders. Meanwhile, the Design production stage is a multi-dimensional, multi-level, and multi-factor stage. Urban Design has been defined in the theoretical literature as a collaborative and transdisciplinary process for shaping the physical environment. In practice, however, the stage of the creation of idea and idea generation is led separately and in part only by the Designer.  Therefore, no significant interaction with the other stakeholders is done. For example, in the Shahid Nawab Safavid Highway project in Tehran, the urban authority's power in preparing and implementing the plan by relying on municipal support, implementing the plan based on the pre-determined and totally inflexible plan, limited public participation, limited choice, a linear process, and lack of the intervention of the stakeholders shows the insufficient process. Thus, the Design product is created with minimal interaction and with the " Elitism " and "Design black box" approach. This is while the stage of creating an idea is itself a multi-dimensional, multi-level, and multi-factor stage. The purpose of this research is to provide a conceptual framework for creating a collaborative Design process at the idea generation stage in the urban Design process. For this purpose, in this research, an attempt is made to answer the question of what components are there in the realization of collaborative urban Design in the plan production stage.   Considering the creative nature of Design, how can the Design production stage in the urban Design process be formed with a scientific approach based on the interaction and collaboration between stakeholders? Also, in the case study, according to the nature of collaborative urban Design, the question is answered, how the proposed process can be operationalized in a research case study? The purpose of this research is to provide a conceptual framework for the realization of the collaborative Design process in the Design production stage in urban Design. Methodology: Quantitative and qualitative analysis methods have been used in this research. First, using the qualitative analysis method and the content analysis method in the creative/rational process of urban Design, indicators, and components were extracted to compile the framework. These components include: diversity of stakeholders; limiting the number of stakeholders; power networking; validating the conversation; making collaboration meaningful; mutual learning; divergence of the discovery process; convergence of the problem-solving process; interactive learning; toolbox application; test and risk. Results: The results suggest the collaborative Design process as a series of cycles of conceptualization, ideation, solution presentation, and evaluation as a result of the forces of power, which are networked in a spatial relationship with the collaboration of stakeholders. From the overlap of the Design Thinking process as a creative arm and collaborative rationality as a rational arm, the collaborative Design process is formed in 8 steps. Each step of this process has interactive feedback that is revised by asking questions in case of a lack of informed consensus building. Discussion: In the proposed process Power is formed from the collaboration of interaction and mutual learning (learning through interaction), which can be considered the center of the sphere, which forms the cycle of interaction of stakeholders in one spatial dimension and the production cycle of Design in another dimension.  Wherever the power of interaction and learning during the process is stronger on the Design production cycle, the product of the Design is driven to that superior power. Conclusion: The proposed collaborative Design process is proposed in 8 steps with criteria and sub-criteria. It needs to be implemented in a networked and integrated system in a set of data and hybrid methods and the details can be studied in another study.

Critical Thinking could be defined as a review process which could be acquired and includes description, analysis, reasoning, interpretation, assessment, decision-making, selection, judgment and revision. As a Designer employs a variety of Thinking strategies, the Design process could not be thoroughly described. Nevertheless, critical Thinking provides opportunities for enriching an explicitly assessing the Design process. By use of critical Thinking in the Design process, two complementary strategies are employed: problem-based strategy and solution-based strategy.

Design Thinking attends to Designing manners to figure out common patterns to describe what Designers do and how they interact with complex problems. These data can help improve Designer's skills and other Design insights. There are lacks of studies in Design Thinking in Iranian Design studies. This issue causes defecting the understanding of Design Thinking principles and specifications. This issue not only causes defecting the understanding of Design Thinking principles and specifications, but also misunderstanding of the one in Design society too. The main issue which is focused on it is about "what Design Thinking characteristics are?" In this paper we tried to describe Design Thinking specifications in three viewpoints as foundations, methods and facilitators to demystify Design Thinking. Design process, problem solving, and human- centered approach, learning from failures, making prototypes and expert's collaboration are the most important specifications that are described deeply through this study. We compared traditional Thinking with Design Thinking in conclusion. Results show deep differences between two models. A visual model shows Design Thinking principles in three viewpoints. This model provide an integrate understanding on Design Thinking principles but there are potentials to bring up of other models in the future studies.